Why must every Republican campaign ad start with the declaration

[Sope Creek]

Jesus was highly considerate . . .

of others, like providing wine to the wedding party so they wouldn't lose face, unless he had a higher purpose for not being considerate. I can imagine just as vividly him dealing with homosexual issues with total discretion - privately - as you can imagine him concluding one man/one woman is the only paradigm for marriage. Without facts, either is as plausible as the other.

So the question is whether one can take the principle Jesus advocated - monogamous, committed relationships in the context of a marriage instead of the ripped societal fabric that we know results from wanton sexual promiscuity - and apply it in gay relationships in addition to straight relationships. What say you, Doug?

This post was edited on 4/15 10:27 AM by Sope Creek

 

[Sope Creek]

Here we go again . . .

are you contending that those eunuchs were gay men?

Regarding Matthew 19, that discussion regarding marriage and divorce . . . wasn't he addressing the pain and disruption that not honoring committed relationships causes? Do you really think that he intended to say "none of this applies if your homosexual"? Please tell me the logic behind THAT argument.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For the purposes of this thread, it should be noted...

...that you are describing the teachings of Paul, not Jesus, here.

 

[Sope Creek]

For the purposes of this thread, it should be noted...

that you are wrong about what I am describing.

Pound sand, Goat! (I've always wanted to say that . . . .)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Monogamy vs. sexual promiscuity

That's the theme of 1 Cor 7. Jesus' defense of marriage was more theological, and was grounded in the creation story. I don't think it is as easily applicable to same sex marriage.

Paul's argument is clearly compatible with same-sex marriage.

 

[Sope Creek]

Says you . . .

when I want your opinion in this thread, I'll tell you what it is, got it? GRIN

 

[Noodle]

Here you go....


I think this came out about 2 weeks ago in the Cincinnati area. In fact, when this thread started I immediately thought of this ad (linked below). I guess it's not the first line in the ad--it's the second, and happens at the 5 second mark.

"If there's one thing you should know about my husband Matt Bevin is that he leads by example. He's a Christian."

And it ends with "I live as a conservative and I'll govern as a conservative."

Right now, this is pretty much the only candidate TV ad that I have been seeing on a regular basis. There just aren't that many running ads yet.

As for the candidate running this ad, Matt Bevin lost the Kentucky Senate primary to Mitch McConnell last Fall. Now he's running for the Republican nomination for governor of KY. He's also a Tea Partier. I have yet to see an ad for any other candidate (at least none that I recall).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIiui6R8FzE

 

[ARMZP]

Say what? Are you kidding me?

Leviticus 18:22

 

[Sope Creek]

*THUMP*

My head just hit the desk . .

. . . to be polite about it, you've come into a conversation that's waaaayy past that juncture . . . I'm sorry if you feel ignored, but because this conversation is waaaay down the road, I'm going to ignore you.

If you want to get caught up with this conversation, I suggest that you read (and not necessarily agree with) Jesus, Homosexuality and the Bible by Jack Rogers. I've provided a link to make it easy for you to find the book.

All the best . . . .

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

What secular society?


What do you know about what Jesus would support? Have you spoken to or with Jesus lately? Do you pray?

 

[Noodle]

he was a pretty nice guy, that's for sure nm


nm

 

[DougS]

No, I wasn't implying that..

I always interpreted the section on eunichs to apply simply to those who, either by choice or otherwise, gave up their sexual capability altogether in order to serve God or, perhaps, to watch over a harem. (Grin).

As to the rest, as indicated elsewhere in this thread, I think the whole gay issue was off the table in that culture (now there's an open door!)

The issue really boils down to whether or not the change in culture over the century is in keeping with Gods plans or not, and which is more important (assuming one cannot do both) - demonstrating love and acceptance to the point of endorsement, or doing the same within a set of limits that does not consider anything apart from 1 man 1 woman to be in keeping with Gods design.

 

[Noodle]

Re: What secular society?

Originally posted by Mas-sa-suta:

Have you spoken to or with Jesus lately?

Yes, and he said that, after reading some of your posts, he wonders what went wrong.

 

[Sope Creek]

Oh boy . . .

sooo . . . are you of the view that homosexuality is a choice?

If not, how would homosexuality not be apart of "God's design"?

If you agree with the growing trend of scientific literature on the subject, i.e., that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic of an individual, how do you reconcile homosexuality with the 1 man/1 woman principle you're advocating? Is an analogy off the table because it's not expressly stated in scripture? (Be careful what you wish for there . . . .)

 

[VanPastorMan]

They didn't have income taxes in Palestine. There were other taxes such as

the temple tax, tariff type taxes,but no income. I was being playful because the statement was made about Jesus being a liberal.

 

[Noodle]

hmmmmm......


I'm no Biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that Leviticus is in the Old Testament, and was written hundreds ( or even 1000-2000?) years before Jesus was born.

 

[ARMZP]

True. But

Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it. So it would still apply.

Also there is. Mark 10:6-9
and Romans 1: 24-27

He is making an argument with a foundation that is completely wrong. Regardless of how well, or how long, he wants to argue.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's a little selective

If you want to cite Mark Chapter 10, maybe include verses 1-5, and you'll see that Jesus' understanding of the law is a little different than yours.

 

[Sope Creek]

GRIN . . .

from the view you're describing, it's pretty clear where your head is on this issue.

Look, I'm not going to try to persuade you to agree with me - I haven't tried to do that with Doug - but I will ask you to have an open mind that others do have a basis for having a different view on this issue (and for calling you out for being completely WRONG, again . . . but that's beside the point). So I suggest that you get Rogers' book and read it . . . if not to change your mind, then to at least develop sufficient respect for those who disagree with you that you can coexist with them on an internet board, and perhaps even in the same church.

 

[ARMZP]

Well actually it isn't that

difficult to coexist with others in church. A good reading of the Bible will find that Jesus spent very little time in "church" (He is the church but that is a different Point). Along with the same passages I have suggested it also says to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

So I have no problem with co-exsisting. In fact, my best friend is gay, and I talk to him on a regular basis and visit whenever I get the chance.

As my son rightfully pointed out, God doesn't grade on a curve. So I have no more problem with this sin, then I do with the many hundred I have of my own. If you can't coexist with sinners, then you shouldn't be in any church.

 

[DougS]

Trying to carry on this conversation while.....

Making sure you can retire in grand style is no easy feat!

Your first question is the sticking point, isn't it? Is homosexuality a behavior or an attribute? If it is ever scientifically proven to be genetically encoded I will switch sides in the debate.

 

[ARMZP]

I did

1:5 changes nothing.

 

[meridian]

Excellent point. **

**

 

[meridian]

Jesus was not just a liberal.

He was a revolutionary or at least a radical liberal. Note that he was chastised by the establishments, both political and religious, and wound up on the cross.

 

[meridian]

LOL!! **

**

 

[meridian]

Thanks for the clarification of my statement.

I assumed it was obvious. I am surprised that it has become a heated discussion topic. I guess I was wrong.

BTW, Doug, I am sorry I could not respond to your previous question/challenge. I spent most of yesterday afternoon with a surgeon, discussing my upcoming surgery; and evening with my wife, discussing the ramifications of the surgery on our planned European vacation. I still don't know whether to postpone the latter (and take financial hit) or take a chance and go for it.

Anyway, it appears that the very subject is being actively discussed today. So, no point of repeating it.

My apologies to you.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sure it does.

It changes how you should interpret Matt 5.17.

 

[Ladoga]

I know of only one

race in Central Indiana - where my television stations originate - where any candidate is airing television. It on the internet and its the Republican primary for Mayor of Lebanon. There is only one ad by one candidate and it doesn't mention faith.

Only Kentucky and Virginia have statewide elections this year. In Indiana its only cities and towns and maybe some school boards and no one is on TV yet.

So just what is this group of ads included in "almost all of them"? Where are they? What offices? I know there is a primary in Ft. Wayne for city offices, haven't seen anyone's ads from there.

 

[Zizkov]

lol**

Jfjkrkkrri

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I've seen a few here in FW.

And they all mention faith.

But then there are a couple of things to remember:

1. This is Fort Wayne.
2. The only politicians who run ads during primary season up here are Republicans (because the Dems have no money).

goat

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It pretty much has been,

Like any complex behavior, there is a combination of genes and conditioning, but there is definitely a genetic factor to sexuality. If you're interested in the nitty gritty, look for a lengthier post from me later on it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You're kidding me.

There are campaign ads out already? Thank God I haven't seen any. I don't really recall any from the last cycle focusing on faith either, but candidates from both parties tend to put it out there that they're people of faith - usually Christian faith.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Remember where I live.

The Republican primary IS the major election for most races. Much like the Democratic primary in Toledo.

If any Democrats run ads, you can bet they will be good Christians, too. City of churches, you know. Our Repubs are very right if center, and our Dems are noticeably right of center, as well.

 

[DougS]

looking forward to it, and congrats

On your first case today.

 

[DrHoops]

Hahaha!!!

Very clever!