Don’t Ever Stop Clapping for the LGBTQ Community

Yes, dear brother, but you had better organize and commit to prayer meetings, following the guidance of Jonathan Edwards which he laid out in his Humble Attempt which inspired Carey and others to launch the Great Century of Missions. Then, having prayed, then you launch out. Remember Carey and those associated with that effort prayed for seven years before they took action. Thus far, we have no organized prayer meetings taking place on a regular, appointed basis (like the second Tuesday or some such day of the week or month). Why don’t we on SBC Voices organize to that end and purpose in every state, establish a day and a time, when we shall call upon the Lord for His visitation, for another awakening, for the Gospel to spread to every person in this nation and to every planet to which man is going or will go for a 1000 generations? What do you say, David? See how many of these preachers are interested in a prayer meeting that might last for years and involve all the peoples of the earth and much more for generations that might begin to reach the age of methuselah.

Dr. JW

You have been praying for Awakening for nearly as long as I have know you, and that is a little over a half of a century.

I would join with anyone how want to commit to pray for a movement of God in our nation. the need has never been greater.

With my Pre Trib Pre Mil theology I may have a little trouble with your timeline however 🙂

Your faithfulness to God’s Kingdom has been and continues to be an inspiration to me, my Brother.

“Thus far, we have no organized prayer meetings taking place on a regular, appointed basis”

You must not be looking around. I am aware of meetings like this taking place all over the place. I participated in some of them. The most recent example is a group of local pastors who meet every single Wednesday and pray – for hours, some on knees – for revival, and have done so for 20-something years. I was part of that group for a chunk of my time as pastor and saw their fervor firsthand. I’ve seen other such groups in other places. From the books I’ve read on prayer – including prayer for revival – prayer groups like Edwards weren’t particularly large on a regular basis; I don’t know of anything that would distinguish Edwards prayer practice from the practices I’ve seen in several pastors I’ve known. Granted those pastors and those prayer groups are far from the norm, but Edwards and Carey were also far from the norm of their time. Prayer isn’t what’s needed, nor has it ever shown effectiveness; revival comes through the confluence of various social factors that lead people to be particularly open to manipulation of this sort. Every revival has precipitating factors in society. Christians often acknowledge this, but explain it as God preparing the field for harvest. Confirmation bias at its finest.

Dear Chris: Your unbelief is duly noted and rejected. Are you seeking to convince someone on this blog of the futility of prayer? Or could it be that you have begun to doubt your doubts, you have become skeptical of your skepticism? If you have not, you are not a very good Atheist, I would think.

Tarheel, isn’t being “pro-homosexual” as much at risk for bias as being “pro-Christian?”

You seem to be arguing that having a point of view could be problematic, but only if it was not the popular, socially accepted view.

What that leads to is a double-standard, not true free speech.

I’m sure there is more to what you said than I have extracted, so I am not necessarily disagreeing with your view point but using it as a jumping off point for more discussion.

God bless.

Thanks for making your position clear, and so much for “we battle not against flesh and blood”.

I suppose you’re a dominionist of some sort or another?

He is an impressive enough individual that if he ran he could win. He is not only a gifted speaker and leader but a visionary and disciplined administrator.

#1 I really find it excruciatingly hard to believe someone would actually believe Cochran’s views represented the city of Atlanta just because he is the fire chief. (Although some have used this as a “talking point”.)

#2 One help in this area is to have someone join you in the hiring process. (I don’t know about the Atlanta Fire Dept., but in many businesses & organizations, someone this high up the chain often isn’t even involved in the majority of hirings.)

Robert

You are spot on re. number 1. Re. number 2 I suspect he has little if anything to do with the rank and file. If he did it would be unusual in an organization that size. Perhaps he “signs off” on recommendations given to him but I would be surprised if it were more than that, even IF that.

To carry this theme a little farther, I doubt that he even deals with personnel matters at all except for those immediately related to him. This is a very large operation and it is only logical to assume that there is a lot of delegation going on.

In addition there is no evidence to my knowledge, that even if he did relate closely to the many employees, that he would make decisions based on gender/orientation issues.

In fact, I would be interested in any facts (not heresy or gossip) that indicate that Evangelical Christians “mistreat” any public employees because of sexual orientation. Where has this happened??

My point: Unless this is actually happening this is purely a case of freedom of speech and or religion.

Tarheel, if I knew the answers to those questions I would have shared them (more below). I don’t think it matters if accepting the book was a condition or employment of not. What would be wrong distributing the book to employees?Anytime a superior gives an employee something of a personal nature that was not asked for potentially puts the employee in a difficult position. (People have even gotten in trouble when both parties consent!)

However, I did find something more about the claims from Cochran himself contrary to how some of the stories are explaining the situation. From the NY Times:

“Mr. Cochran said that three city employees had received a copy of the book without asking for one. But he said that he had given it out only to members of the department whom he had established ‘a personal relationship with as Christians.”’

If that is the case, then probably some folks who did not like Cochran’s positions decided to harm his career and succeeded. Part of the problem is Mayor Reed will not speak further about the situation.

I do wish Cochran had hard copy (such as email) proof that the Atlanta’s ethics officer approved the book. Same for the Mayor confirming receipt of the book in Jan. 2014.

I do not think there is anything wrong or improper about anyone (supervisor or not) saying “I wrote a book – if ya want one here it is.”

Unless they use it as a means to discriminate or create an unfair “code” determined by who likes or does not like his book. Absent those types of things I still see no problem.

As to people wanting to hurt his career – it seems to me that – as the OP suggests – this is more about PC intimidation and silencing anyone who does not wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality as being admirable behavior. It is not just Christians who reject homosexuality for biblical reasons that are being targeted – its ANYONE who for ANY REASON does not embrace it.

Intimidated by their boss?

Lots and lots of people are in that position without a book…LOL. Not sure supervisors should be fired simply because some of their subordinates might feel intimidated… 😉

In fact its a bit normal to feel somewhat that way is it not?

When I was working at a warehouse right after HS – one of my supervisors was a peacenik hippie for lack of a better term – he wrote a little pamphlet and encouraged us all to get one…I knew I would very likely not agree with a single word written therein – but I picked up one and read it because I wanted to know what made him tick – not so I could find a way to get him in trouble. Like you, I think it was, indicated in another comment it seems that maybe that was someone’s goal here.

As a government employee, I know how this stuff works. P-O-L-I-C-Y is the word. It doesn’t really matter what we think his actions warrant, if its written in policy and he broke it, then you can bet that’s the course that was taken.

When a situation arises and the news gets ahold of it, the default position is “refer to and follow policy”. Always. This is mostly done when state auditors or govt accountability groups uncover something. Standard procedure.

also, written policy (for govt at least) usually not only tells employees what they can do and how they are to do it, but what the punishment would be if that policy is broken. Sometimes it vague. Sometimes not.

Tarheel,

It’s true that there are others who are not Christian that believe homosexuality is immoral, but we would be very hardpressed to find an instance where anybody but a Christian was intimidated out of a position. Was Brendan Eich a Christian? Has that happened to any Muslims?

What about the Mozilla guy that was forced out because of his tacit support of the Cali proposition measures….was he a Christian?

Sure attacks on Christians are more visible because we tend to be more vocal – but anyone who does not embrace homosexuality as moral, or dares to speak disagreement publicly is a target.

Mormons are targeted as being “anti gay” as are politicians and community leaders who may not be Christian but oppose it for whatever reason.

I wondered about that when I was rereading your comment – I was like I am going to feel stupid if that is the name of the Mozilla did…LOL!

I could not remember his name and did not want to play Google. 😉

Seriously though, my point is that Christians are targets of the PC police for sure on this issue…but its not only Christians…its anyone who dares to disagree for any reason on the “civil rights issue of the day.”

Tarheel

you are correct. Even the most casual observer of current affairs must realize that there is a broader agenda here from the gay community. Tolerance is not their goal, even acceptance is not. The effort is to rid our country of any voice that speaks against that community. I am not a conspiracy theorist by a long shot, but I think this one is obvious.

Abortion was made legal by the SCOTUS??

That t would be making law….they would not do that would they as they are not constitutionally granted that power – are they?

😉

Nope! I do not Chris. I simply regard the Supreme Court of today as a reflection of those folks who are behind the politicians and pull their strings so the latter dance to the tune of the string pullers. Besides, the rule on abortion was a law made by Scotus, whereas the religious issue was simply a recognition of a fact. And the 1892 ruling according to the late Dr. D. James Kennedy was based upon a ten year study of the nation’s judicial history. And Chris, when are you going to admit that this religious freedom issue grew out of the Baptists and their commitment to the idea that a person must be full persuaded of the Gospel and by the Gospel? I notice that you did not read my comment very closely, too. How convenient. Since you did not read it, you do not have to answer the questions or address the issues raised as they might not be germane to your agenda. I always liked to address every issue possible in my atheistic days. However, when God showed up, I found myself intimidated by His reality, to say the least. It was sort of like when an old pin ball machine would tilt. Took an hour or so to get untilted. Sort of wondering if you did read the comment and well you can guess the rest.

James,

I don’t read all of your comments because they are long and rambling, typically saying the same thing, and often making little sense.

Wow Chris you are a troller aren’t you.

Better watch it, Chris. My brother-in-law has a sharp wit as well as perception. As the old saying goes, “Touche, friend, touché!”

Chris, I do not think the Supreme Courts opinion on the matter is really the issue. Either America had a founding upon Judeo-Christian ethics or it did not.

The evidence is so overwhelming that the central, driving ethic of the Founding Fathers was Christian, that it would be “funny” for any one to suggest otherwise–unless it is possible to be blinded by an evil force.

I understand that many people “say and teach” a different history for our nation, but it cannot change the facts.

Now, what might be a worthy conversation is: “how do we apply the Judeo-Christian ethic to the civil commerce of our nation.” I think that is the issue. However, sadly that is not the issue. Our discussions must now be had in the context of a nation that never existed.

Jack,

The “overwhelming evidence” of which you speak is less overwhelming to historians trying to do their work with unbiased eyes. Some of the founders were Christian, some were not. Some sought to shape law based on their Christian views, some did not. Much of the political theory behind this nation came from various political theorists of other nationalities and backgrounds.

But whatever they may have been, they crafted a constitution which declares a secular state in which the state is not involved in the affairs of religion, and vice versa. Whatever people may have believed or may have done, whether or not supreme court justices tried to call this a Christian nation, whether or not politicians have claimed Christian things, we are a secular state. It’s just taking us a really long time to arrive at that condition.

“Much of the political theory behind this nation came from various political theorists of other nationalities and backgrounds.”

Like John Locke. I think modern/post modern evangelicals forget what the Founders knew as recent history and what passed as Christianity. They were not anti Christian but they were more than familiar with church state thinking and the repression in such.

Some Puritans saw Franklin’s lightening rod as divination early on.

Let’s just say that guys like Edwards would not be quick to declare that man can govern himself. That was radical thinking. The founders thought God agreed with that idea.

Chris, I don’t suppose to convince you of facts you decided cannot possibly be true, or facts that do not support your disdain and newfound antagonism toward Christianity. I find it noteworthy you now consider yourself, “unbiased.”

You are simply foolish in your assertion that historians have now decided that Christianity had only a passing influence on the founding of our nation–and some antagonists toward Christianity will not even grant that.

Simply look at the buildings, paintings, statuaries, and such in the nation’s capital and they attest to the basic world-view of the nation.

This is not to say that the Founders were ignorant of philosophical positions of others, such as John Locke mentioned above. Yet, even Locke was interpreted through the grid of Judeo-Christian influences in jurisprudence.

This statement: “”But whatever they may have been, they crafted a constitution which declares a secular state in which the state is not involved in the affairs of religion, and vice versa,”” would nearly be correct if you had not added “vice versa.”

I would argue that the Founders did not want a “secular state” as you apparently use the term. Also, I know of no proposition in the Constitution that prohibits the free exercise of religion in state matters. I’ve read the Constitution several times and have a copy at hand in my desk drawer.

Please point out the Ariticle (or Articles) outlining an prohibition from church (religious, Christian, etc.) participation in governing matters.

Start with the First Amendment, perhaps, and show me the “vice versa” you allude to in your statement quoted above. I am always open to discussion, as biased as you might think I am.

Dear Jack: You are quite right. Suggestive is the old Deist himself, Ben Franklin, who called for prayer in the Constitutional Convention (which the convention could not approve as they did not have the money to pay a preacher) as recorded in James Madison’s Notes on the Convention. Franklin even went on to speak about the matter of Providence. He is buried in an Episcopal cemetery with a statement on the resurrection on his tomb, and, being a member of the church (one had to be to be buried in their cemeteries then), he had to believe in the deity of Christ (required of all Episcopalians and Anglicans then in order to be a member. Imagine that! And this is just scratching the surface. What Chris is touting is the junk that came out of Harvard and the Transcendentalist movement which came to dominate the judicial and educational systems of America, being aided by the evolutionary stuff of Social Darwinism in the last part of the 19th and early 20th century. O, and as to historians, while I have written very, very little, I do have the experience of having taught American History, earned an M.A. in American Social & Intellectual History, 18 hrs. toward a Ph.D. in the field, 12 of that 18 at an Ivy League school, Columbia, where I wrote a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation and delivered a lecture in an Summer Afternoon Lecture Series on the subject, “The Stanley Elkins Thesis: A Critique.” O yes, and I was elected to membership in Phi Alpha Theta – The International Honor Society of Historians and have been a member of the Organization of American Historians along with the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (or the African American Historians Association as it is known now). As to the disagreement among historians, there are motivations for such. Just follow the money trail, and you will be amazed at where it ends.

Dr. J. My respect for you having conversed with you for a few years now via the blog is very, very high.

Being aware of your sharp mind and predilection to academic study, I’d just like to say I am relieved you agree with me. 🙂

PS–Dr. J, would you not agree that those who default to the Jeffersonian myth of a “wall of separation between church and state,” commit the fallacy of equivocation by using the word “church” in a different manner than Jefferson in his famous letter.

Church, as used in other places in the Founding time of our nation more specifically meant, “denomination.” What Jefferson was arguing against was not “Christianity,” but a parochial version of Christianity. His doctrine would more accurately be stated as a “separation of denomination” and state.

Dr. J. What would you say about that thesis?

Dear Jack: Perhaps a better answer would be to note that Jefferson attended a Baptist Church that met in the legislative building of the new nation, according to what I have read, for all the years of his two terms. He also held up, according to one source I have read, the Baptist Church near his residence in Virginia as the nursery for democracy. It was a congregational church in government as all Baptist churches are supposed to be, and Jefferson saw that as a learning experience for people who would participate in our government at all levels. Add to the Baptists the Congregationalists, and you have a ready made body of people who were already practicing democracy. This is one of the problems we have today: our immigrants are not really prepared for such participation. Also, we have the problem of the American people being subjected to brainwashing techniques in order to get them to do what the ruling class desires. The science of population control was developed in the early 20th century, and the practices were used in order to enlist Americans the World War I effort. We are beginning to encounter the ruling class as opposed to our way of life and as determined to effectively isolate us from the public forum. Our decline mirrors the decline of the middle class from which we drew most of our membership. It is going to take a cunning, informed and devout leadership to even preserve our denomination and the great mission programs that we have developed. Most of our leaders, unfortunately, have little preparation for the kinds of troubles that we are already beginning to face. By the way Jefferson’s conduct indicates that he was very much aware of the fact that the new nation needed the Christian people in order to survive, that they had been strong supporters of the revolution. My grandmother was a Craig (she named our son), and in Virginia Elijah Craig headed up the committee that made a deal with the colonial legislators that in exchange for the freedom of Baptists to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers would encourage the young men who lived in their communities to enlist in the patriots cause. Their success is indicated by the fact that one whole regiment of the Virginia militia was made of people who bore the last name of Craig. After all, a Scotch… Read more »

Dear Jack: The Supreme Court decisions, since 1912 at least with some exceptions, have been influenced by an alien viewpoint that is utterly hostile to the foundations of this nation. Practically, all of our institutions reflect to a greater or lesser degree the effort of some particular forces bent on changing this nation. In short, I am referring to a conspiracy which has begun to reveal that it thinks it is far enough along that it cannot be stopped. Our people do not follow the money trail; they do not research the whys and wherefores of events. Consider this, for example, Louis McFadden, a member of the House of Representatives stated that there was a need to impeach the members of the board of the Federal Reserve System. He was in the process of going forward with that plan, when he was poisoned at a banquet. Take the political history and background of William Jennings Bryan and how he spoke out against the fact that certain forces were involved in shaping our government’s response to World War I. Consider, further, how he was pilloried in the press for his debate with Clarence Darrow at Dayton, Tn. He, along with all believers in the biblical account of creation, were held up for ridicule, thanks to H.L. Mencken, and yet of all the participants in the court case the most educated participant was Bryan who held three earned degrees, including a Bachelor’s, Master’s and Bachelor of Laws. Also the judicial summary of that case which brought about a decision in Bryan’s favor was written by a man who had practiced law before the U.S. Supreme Court for about 20 years and who had never lost a case. I will conclude with the text of the Liberty Bell, the one symbol of our freedom which I have seen and which moved me to tears, Lev.25:10, “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land.” No wonder, the professors from Houston found that by double digits, some 34%, that our founding documents owed more to the Bible than anything or anyone else. In fact, the political philosophers, John Locke and Montesquieu, were in the single digits, 7-9%, and the former has his view of the Bible incorporated into our Baptist Faith and Message from 1925 onward. Jack, we really do need people willing to pay the price in doing research, people who will not limit themselves to… Read more »

I stopped to google one of your claims and couldn’t read any further. He died of a heart attack caused by coronary thrombosis (blood clot in the heart). There are some conspiracy theorist websites that claim assassination attempts (I couldn’t find anything to verify attempts had been made on his life; the only source making the claim appears to have been a journal, “Pelley’s Weekly” which was run by a rather peculiar fellow who “claimed he met with God and Jesus”, claimed he could levitate, see through walls, and have out-of-body experiences whenever he wanted; and supported Nazi Germany, eventually being arrested for treason; these are just the highlights) and suspicions that his death was ultimately an assassination, but the reality is much more mundane: he died of a heart attack.

So let’s go back to the bit where people should do their own research rather than trust the wacky ideas of conspiracy theorists…

Clarification: the “he died of a heart attack” refers to Louis McFadden.

Yes, and you will be placed on a 30-day SBC Voices suspension without pay! (Or should the punishment be “with pay” since you already aren’t getting any?)

I think the correct sequence is that he became Shreveport, LA’s fire chief in 1999, then later went to Atlanta and served there until he became U.S. Fire Administrator in 2009. Then came back to Atlanta.

Fox News reported it this way, “The little boy in the shotgun shack grew up to become the fire chief of Shreveport. He was named the Atlanta fire chief in 2008 – a position he served until 2009 when was called to serve in the Obama Administration as a fire administrator. In 2010 he returned to Atlanta where he was unanimously confirmed to once again be the city’s fire chief,” (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-was-fired-because-my-christian-faith/).

Yeah, you may want to figure out another way to say what you are trying to say. What you wrote in the piece sounded funny, but I just assumed there was some explanation for what you were talking about that I didn’t understand. The quote from Fox News makes it clear that your original statement is not accurate the way it is written.

Not trying to be picky. I thought the post was very good.

President Clinton was in office in 1999

Why need I bother with a discussion with you Ben? You not only didn’t answer the question I posed in that point you didn’t see any need to ask me anything befor pronouncing what I’m ready to do.

What I’m ready to do right now is to eat some very good cream of cauliflower soup my wife but if you answer mine, then ask me yours, I’ll try and answer.

Sorry, your jump to “…Bible believing Christian need not apply…” is far from established. I gave a number of things that complicate this case but all can be ignored if necessary. Do you see any areas where the Chief could have acted differently.

I think the mayor didn’t like being kicked in the teeth by the chief on his speaking tour. Here are a couple of strong personalities in conflict.

more later…perhaps

Is there room to ague here that the chief is in fact making a run for the Mayor’s office.

How is that a fact? Atlanta is likely the one locale in the state he couldn’t get elected.

William T

I was not clear, sorry. That was a question. Is there room to argue that he is making a run for the office? I have no earthly idea. My question is based on the speaking tour. That is what one would do if he were considering office.

As a bi-vocational pastor let me just say to #1 I’m not hanging out on a limb. I know the policies where I work and I follow them. Ignorance of policy is not an excuse for violating the. Most companies- especially large ones or governments- make very clear via manuals, orientations, etc what is expected of employees and what rights they have and are surrendering in order to work there.

For example, my employer changed its social media policy recently and asked that disclaimers be added to all employee social media accounts stating that what is posted is our own opinion and not representative of anyone we work for. The policy was widely disseminated.

In my mind, Ben’s article is alarmist in nature and harkens back strongly to the post on outrage from a few days ago. We have the boogeyman, the victim, and all of the Christians in the US ready to be sent to the gulags. Not even close to the case.

This is what comes from reading Todd Starnes and Fox”News” which is designed to incite not inform. I’m hoping many of us will read Dallas Willard’s posthumous work “The Allure of Gentleness: Defending the Faith in the Manner of Jesus” when it releases later this year. I’m hoping that we can relearn to interact with those who do not agree with us with grace and dialogue again, rather than with false prophecies of doom and promises of impending arrest and imprisonment.

We can do better than this.

Ryan,

It’s called satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize problems in society, particularly in the context of contemporary politics.

“However, it’s becoming clear that tolerance is not their end game. The sexual radicals, it seems, will not stop until society celebrates their lifestyle. Toleration is not enough. We must say, they seem to be telling us, that what they are doing is good and righteous. We must smile approvingly and march with them because those who are not with them are against them. We must stand and clap for the LGBTQ community and never stop. Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding the LGBTQ community!”

Combine the above quote with the Solzhenitsyn excerpt and not you try to pass it off as satire? Ben, I’m either the biggest dunce in the world (which might be the case) or your understanding of how to execute satire is poor.

This article does not meet the definition of satire you provided. The guys who were shot in France. That was satire. Mad Magazine. Satire. Editorial cartoons. Satire. Animal Farm. Satire. Dear White People. Satire.

Sorry man. I don’t see it.

Ryan,

Personally I’m leaning toward your first hypothesis.

There is a first time for everything and that is I agree with Ryan.

As one who has spent a career in the real world, I can tell you the way the culture war was approached by evangelicalism was a dismal failure. Besides, I am not convinced a “Christian” nation is possible. Whose? Doug Wilson? Piper? Osteen? We have better options with a composite society where we can be the light of the world. But that will be harder without free speech.

And because this thinking is so ingrained many do not know how to be a Christian in the real world surrounded by all this sort of thing. I work with LBGT folks all the time. I cannot spend that time telling them what sinners they are. As Paul said, I would have to go out of the world.

The approach in this matter needs to be one of free speech and backing our constitution. And we need to ask why “public servants” cannot have free speech or differing opinions? We have laws to protect folks from actions. Why do we need to regulate opinions we disagree with?

I saw this same thinking during the Ferguson ordeal. Shut down any discussion that was popular. What are people so afraid of? Ideas. they fear ideas.

The LBGT movement has tons of money. Most of the movers and shakers are professionals who make a lot of money. they don’t have children so they have not only time but money. And they use their positions and money to advocate. I have seen cities and businesses held hostage to their demands. They want a permit for a parade? The city council dares not say no. They want your business to sponsor an event? Don’t you dare say no. They know how to bring prolonged agony. And they are much more clever than Al Sharpton ever dreamed when it comes to blackmail.

Let us encourage free exchange of ideas. Let us encourage it in the public square. That is who we are, right? Or are we afraid to lose?

I am glad we agree. I also largely agree with your comments above. I would rather be able to have a free exchange of ideas in the public square- even ideas I don’t agree with or condone- if it means a hearing for the Gospel.

Good stuff.

Ryan, I agree that ignorance of policy — just like ignorance of the law — is no excuse. I brought this up because pastors who might work in such places need to become aware that there are such policies. I’m not sure how widely known it is that a bi-vo pastor might get in trouble with his employer for something he wrote as a pastor rather than a employee. Personally I think that businesses requiring disclaimers on social media is in one sense silly and in another overbearing. And yet in the real world in which we live businesses can take hits for what their employees say on social media, and possibly even be sued in the right circumstances. It would be best if people stopped wearing their feelings on their sleeves, yet we don’t operate in a world of what ought to be, but what is. It is good the way that your employer widely disseminates its policy. My employer has a handbook of the “main things” that are easy enough to discover — but have an extremely heavy-laden set of policies beyond this that is also not at all user-friendly for someone who is searching for something particular. It is almost as if those are there just in case they need them (disclaimer: that is just my opinion and in no way reflects the view of my employer). While Ben’s article may be alarmist in nature, I think we need to be alarmed. We need to have an alarm set and we need to wake up to the fact that we don’t live in the same world we lived in 50 years ago. I don’t think “all of the Christians in the US (are) ready to be sent to the gulags” but we are moving in a direction (and have already) of a very different feeling toward and thinking about Christians in this country. Now, I do think Fire Chief Cochran got the short end of the stick, even if some things he did may have contributed to the outcome. Where I differ from some other “alarmists” about these things is how to respond to them. I think there is room to work on some things in a legal way, and I think it is good for Christians to vote their consciences. But I think there is a blessing in the way things are going if we will… Read more »

Robert-

First, I didn’t get to respond to you on the other post before comments were closed. I appreciated your thoughts and though I would argue you were talking about different situations, you had some merits to your discussion. Thanks for the engagement.

In regards to your comments above, let me say that I’m glad to hear you espouse the necessity of the Gospel to change men’s hearts and not laws. I’m in that camp full bore. I think the rapid cultural shifts we are seeing right now in our country are the direct result of 100 years of trying to make people “moral” via law rather than seeing their hearts change via the Gospel- the changing their behavior. I would trace this roughly back to Prohibition and the Temperance Movement, but it probably extends farther back than that. Jesus changes peoples lives no matter what the laws and I’m not fearing for one minute anyone’s agenda. The Gospel overcomes. That’s why I find articles like Ben’s alarmist and pointless. Culture is braking because humans are broken and the key to stemming the tide is not to taking the statehouse or the courthouse but through patient and whimsical presentation of the Gospel. Men are won by the Spirit not by the law.

As to your references to bias in media- I AGREE! All media are biased. I am so glad to hear that you read widely and don’t confine yourself to one news source or mouthpiece. When we understand the times we have a better opportunity to speak Truth to a broken culture in an intelligible language with a full understanding of the issues from all sides. WE definitely need to call sin what it is, but it’s HOW we do it that is becoming the question of the day. Hence my reference to the upcoming book from Dallas Willard.

Finally, let me say that I have enjoyed our limited interactions on SBCV. I appreciate your measured responses to heated topics and the fact that you really seem to have a heart for the Gospel and for people who need the Gospel. We need more men like you.

Ryan–

Just a couple of comments.

Previously, I wrote that we find models in the New Testament of both speaking irenically and calling out the sin & the sinner. In the initial post in the other thread I was mainly making the point that the latter is not as isolated as we might think. Here you wrote, “I would argue you were talking about different situations” and I think we might not be too far apart on this. I think the strongest condemnations were usually piled on the religious leaders who were supposed to represent God to the people and the false teachers & hypocritical sinners hiding in the churches. Others’ sins were not overlooked (e.g. “Go and sin no more”), but definitely approached differently (e.g. “neither do I condemn thee”).

On issues like this with the Atlanta Fire Chief, I often have feelings that come as an American and ones that come as a Christian, which sometimes mix & mingle well and sometimes do not. As an American & a Christian, I hope to see the lines of being able to freely speak our views continue to stay wide open (for all Americans). I do not like to see people lose their jobs because of the views they hold and disseminate. I put up with a lot of views I don’t agree with where I work, and that is just part of being an American. I think staying offended all the time shows some degree of narcissism. But I also believe the LGBT community has a very aggressive agenda that they will continue to press and that needs to be opposed. Where I guess I depart from some conservatives with whom I am otherwise closely allied is in the SOLUTION. I would like to attribute all of this to simply bible study and Christian conviction (and to some extent it is), but must also admit that some of it comes from prior failed “political” efforts that gelled into a deep cynicism of politics and politicians. (But how I got there doesn’t mean the solution is mistaken.)

I hope (and feel) that I have a heart for people, but I have generally failed in winning them with the Gospel. Well I’ve written much more than I intended. Have a blessed day.

Ryan

I don’t think you realize what is transpiring

Nope. I’m fully aware. The fake “Christian” nation culture is dying or dead and the reality of the fact that America was never special or chosen by God is finally being realized. We are a broken nation full of broken people who need a Savior.

What you DL don’t seem to realize-based on your posts and your rhetoric- is the way that Jesus interacted with people who were lost was not by demonizing them or marginalizing them but by loving them where they were and then introducing them to a better way.

I expect lost people to act like lost people so their actions do not surprise me or disgust me. They break me. They also don’t scare or threaten me. What can they do to me? Jesus said we were not to fear someone who could kill the body. That’s the worst thing someone could do to me. So I don’t minister out of fear and I’m not freaked out or calling for “tolerance” when something doesn’t go the way of the Gospel. I expect opposition and I know that throughout history the Gospel has best flourished under oppression.

I think you don’t realize what is transpiring.

Ryan
We could on like this forever, but I don’t have the inclination. I will just say that no one is trying to demonize anyone. I have been preaching that the Gospel is the only hope for man or our nation for 50 years. However anyone who does not believe that there is an aggressive gay agenda at work has their head in the sand. That was/and still is my point.

We live in a nation that murders babies and has endorsed a life style that scripture says God hates. History is full of civilizations that decayed from the inside. One cannot legislate morality, but we can legislate against immorality.

I am concerned about the direction or our nation. Twenty years ago when I came to Montana homosexual activity was by statute illegal and carried a penalty. Today same sex marriage is legal. I am concerned.

We do agree that only the gospel will change man’s heart and thinking.

D.L. writes “We live in a nation that murders babies and has endorsed a life style that scripture says God hates.”

D.L., I’m so old that I picked cotton as a child. If you had told me in those cotton fields that I would live to see a day when we legally murdered 50 million babies and homosexual “rights” spread across our nation, I would have said “No way – I’ll never live to see that!” And I never thought I would witness a time when to speak out about such sins would be labeled as hate speech.

While I don’t have all the facts, it appears that Chief Cochran has made a stand as a Christian to proclaim the truth in love … and that is not hate speech. As a poor white family, we picked cotton alongside many African Americans whom we called friends. I witnessed their struggle to gain the civil rights they deserved. Homosexual “rights” are not civil rights! As Abraham Lincoln said in regard to slavery rights “You do not have the right to do wrong!” When the Christian community loses its freedom to speak God’s truth into moral decay, America will have lost its last voice to make a difference … then judgment will come (or perhaps already has).

D.L. writes “One cannot legislate morality, but we can legislate against immorality.”

D.L., Is it not true that we have legislated “for” immorality? Abortion legislation and same-sex laws are immoral in nature … essentially liberating evil in our society. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, with laws to back it up! Frogs in the lab test kettle we are … that experiment didn’t work out well for the frogs.

Max

Well said…every word. You are correct we have declined a long way. Early this morning (6:00 am) I was watching s western movie in which Elvis sang and did the leg shake he does. I remember the turmoil that arose over that back in the 50’s. Today that looks so calm in light of what I see of musicians on TV. Yes we have declined a long way.

But then again being the old codger of the blog I am sure that no one is surprised by my opinions.

“Is it not true that we have legislated “for” immorality? Abortion legislation and same-sex laws are immoral in nature”

1. No, we are not legislating “for” immorality. If we passed laws forcing you to engage in immoral acts, then you could make the case that we were legislating for immorality. Passing laws which allow (or striking down laws which criminalize) people to commit actions you consider immoral is not the same as legislating for immorality. No one is making anyone do these things.

2. It is relatively easy to make a secular case against abortion. A secular case cannot be made against homosexuality. Many have tried, many have failed. The only case that can be raised against homosexuality is religious in nature. Thus we are not talking about natural morality, but religious morality (something only considered wrong based on the dictates of some deity or another). Matters that are forbidden only by religion should not be forbidden by a secular state. However much you may wish to impose your dogma on others, that is not the way this nation should work.

Chris

There is a sense in which your logic is spot on. The respective from which you speak is valid and accurate. However, there might be another way to frame this discussion. To wit: everyone has a basis for morality or ethics. It is different for different people. I am sure you understand those well. For me the Bible is my authority. It is my basis for ethics and morality. Based on that I would determine that we do at times legislate immorality. Adultery is a “thou shalt not”. If we say “thou mayest” we have broken God’s standard for morality because the “thou mayest” is in direct violation of “thou shalt not” ((KJV 🙂 )

D.L.,

“You can” is not the same as “you can’t”. But it also isn’t the same as “you’d better”. The difference is pretty simple:

Legislation against: “You can’t.”
Legislation for: “You’d better.”
Legislation permitting: “You can.”

The Bible has actions in each of these categories – things God demands his people do, things God demands his people don’t do, and things God permits but doesn’t require.

DL,…. you were too easy on Mr. Chris R. When he says…

“1. No, we are not legislating “for” immorality. If we passed laws forcing you to engage in immoral acts, then you could make the case that we were legislating for immorality.”

“2. It is relatively easy to make a secular case against abortion. A secular case cannot be made against homosexuality.”

His remarks are just pretense. Of course laws are being made that mitigate against biblical wisdom. He has simply made the judgement that his predetermined thought has already adjudicated the matter. He shows you no evidence in either of these cases.

Great catch Chris J.

Yes I was easy on him. I have learned there are some people with whom one cannot have a profitable discussion. They either ignore your arguments, respond in ways that are not clear or rational, or simply change the subject. In Chris R’s case he simply trolls. I do not want to give him the satisfaction. I really do not take him seriously anymore.

D.L., I agree with that wisdom sir!

“Of course laws are being made that mitigate against biblical wisdom.”

Laws are being (or at least should be) made without regard to the Bible’s dictates one way or another. When it comes to secular law, what the Bible says should have no bearing whatsoever.

“Laws are being (or at least should be) made without regard to the Bible’s dictates one way or another. When it comes to secular law, what the Bible says should have no bearing whatsoever.”

Chris, at least you are consistent with your inconsistencies. The Word of God, wisdom, is the basis…has been, and always will the basis for good law. Again, you are wanting to legislate what you perceive as morality based on “secular”. Whatever you deem secular to mean. Relative and/or perceived popular law seems to be what you are aiming for. The law that is revealed from scripture is consistent, and not maintained by popular effect. That is why popular law, as you seem to be posturing, run into issues,….we’ve seen that all throughout history, not just in America.

The bible will continue to have impact on law in an effective way as men/women use the wisdom therein. Governments typically fall woefully short of the law that Christ has fulfilled and revealed as tantamount for all mankind. Yet, governments are held accountable to God none-the-less. From the statements you made….that is probably your main beef.

Chris,

Amazing how societies with no biblical contact managed to function and maintain law… The Bible is not and should not be the foundation of our laws. We are a secular state, end of discussion.

“The law that is revealed from scripture is consistent”

I’m glad I didn’t have food in my mouth when I read that line. We both know there are many inconsistencies in the commands of the Bible. Granted, apologists and theologians have written a fair number of books to try and explain away those inconsistencies, so I suppose I understand your confusion on the matter.

It depends on what one means by the Word of God. When it is used to mean the Bible, the written word, then I side with Chris R.

But if one means it to be the witness of God in the world to individuals, then yes, the basis of laws in every society in every time is due to the witness of God in and through each person’s conscience.

Not that I expect one who is ignorant of God to agree with that statement.But as Christians, it speaks to the common morality that has formed the laws of societies throughout time and place.

And it is that very conscience and the failure of people to live the morality they ascribe to and seek others to ascribe to that will be the basis of the judgment of God.

Romans 2:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

and later in that same place:

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Would my friends here who tout “biblical” laws favor a return to making homosexual activity criminal?

Chris Johnson, you might as well point to one nation “throughout history”, since you claim a broad familiarity with laws and governments, that is a good example for us to follow in regard to “law revealed from Scripture.”

Theocrats should be honest and ‘out’ themselves here.

Chris R., all that you are saying is that Jesus Christ is inconsistent with the law. Jesus was never inconsistent, and was very clear about the intent of the law and what He came to do with it.

Again, you make attempts at theology from a secular angle. You speak of a law that is inconsistent, yet you cannot provide proof of such in any context. Where was Jesus Christ inconsistent with law? And, do you know why He fulfilled the law?

William,

Governments are willing to make laws for many things. Homosexual behavior is a “degrading passion”, whether a government finds it to be legal or illegal. Chris R. made the case that secular laws are not formed to support immorality. I think he has formed a naive position with that statement. That’s all.

Chris,

Actually, I provided no details whatsoever regarding the inconsistencies. You’re the one who brought up Jesus in the context of being inconsistent with OT law.

“Chris R. made the case that secular laws are not formed to support immorality.”

Also not what I said. Nor did I say its opposite.

Chris R… You wrote

“1. No, we are not legislating “for” immorality. If we passed laws forcing you to engage in immoral acts, then you could make the case that we were legislating for immorality. Passing laws which allow (or striking down laws which criminalize) people to commit actions you consider immoral is not the same as legislating for immorality. No one is making anyone do these things.”

Chris…you are correct… you said absolutely nothing. I do think you imply the naivety that forming laws that prop up “degrading passion” have no impact on society within those arguments from all directions.

“Actually, I provided no details whatsoever regarding the inconsistencies. You’re the one who brought up Jesus in the context of being inconsistent with OT law.”

Nope,..you must have misread that… Jesus was never inconsistent with the Law. Good try though. You made this statement …..

“We both know there are many inconsistencies in the commands of the Bible. Granted, apologists and theologians have written a fair number of books to try and explain away those inconsistencies, so I suppose I understand your confusion on the matter.”

I don’t know of any inconsistencies. I think you might hope there are “some” inconsistencies, and that Christ is not able to fulfill the law. But, you have not provided any proof….so far.

I don’t disagree that it’s “two big personalities in a street fight” – but I also can tell that it’s also greatly about political correctness Aiming at the silencing of all opposition to societal normalization and teetotal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

I think it’s both.

I gotcha – DL – makes perfect sense.

I bet it will be a good one brother.

I already said what he did Chris.

I’m sorry Chris, that was jerky of me. I apologize. Paul appealed to Caesar expressly so he could be taken to Rome to preach the Gospel. You see this very clearly in Acts 28. He wasn’t asserting his rights for himself.

Whatever his motive, he was asserting his rights.

I agree, I freely admitted that in my original post Chris. Although I do not agree that it doesn’t matter what he motives were.

Chris

Don’t resist, jump right in.

What did Paul say when he was arrested? What allowed him to take his case to the emperor?”

Bingo.

Btw, the idea that individual civil liberties/ freedom is not consistent with Gods intention for his creation, blows my mind. Do we get it right? No. but surely it is then what passed for Christianity , historically, with the church state.

this discussion reminds me of the horrible 4th of July sermons out there. the ones where they tell us to obey our governing authorities. I keep wondering if these pastors have ever read the Constitution. perhaps it is a public school education. We obey laws. Not dictators. well at least that was how it was supposed to work.

Bingo what Lydia? Do you think Paul asserted his Roman rights for him? If you do you need to go back and read Acts. According to Agrippa if Paul hadn’t appealed to Caesar he would have been set free. Your comment is a veritable exhibit A of the American form of Christianity and not the biblical form. Nowhere are we taught in the scripture are we taught go around asserting our rights. In fact, what I fight all through the New Testament is that we are taught to be willing to set those rights aside if needed to defer to others.

I might add finally that Paul “asserting his rights” ended with him being executed at Rome.

“Bingo what Lydia? Do you think Paul asserted his Roman rights for him?”

Without asserting his “rights” as a Roman citizen he would not have gotten the audience he wanted for the Gospel message. Civil rights can come in handy as does free speech.

So yes, the rights were “for him” to assert what “he wanted to assert”. That is the whole point.

It was not particularly common for Jewish residents of Jerusalem to hold or even want to hold Roman citizenship so Paul was an anomaly of sorts. If you notice at other times in front of the hostile crowd he is a “Jew from Tarsus”. Later, the Centurion asks if he is a Roman Citizen and was concerned about his being beaten.

The whole Roman citizenship process and trajectory is fascinating. Especially how might a Jewish family in Tarsus might have become citizens of Rome or why they would even want it.

I read a scholarly paper on Roman Citizenship during that era a while back that was fascinating.

I am not looking at this from an atheist/Christian filter but strictly through a rights paradigm. What is it we do with our rights and privileges?

“Your comment is a veritable exhibit A of the American form of Christianity and not the biblical form. ”

John, I have long hoped that Christians in the West would see Jesus as their King and that God expects us to govern ourselves in relationship to Him as was the intention at Creation.

It saddens me that so many pastors do not accept the concept of self government whether a Christian or not. We are no longer in the 1st Century and thank God we are not in the 16th Century. While so much evil still exists at least their is not the evil of the magisterium.

Lydia,

To be honest, I regret the sharpness of that part I said about the American form of Christianity. I have no doubt that you are a wonderful Christian lady, and as biblical as any commenter on this site.

We will however have to disagree here, I do not think that Paul did this for himself. He used his Roman right to propel not his Gospel but the Gospel of Christ. Paul’s entire life was an example of laying his rights down for the sake of the Gospel. He taught us in his writings to do the same. People had the legal right to take fellow believers to court, but Paul said lay that right down. They had the right to eat meats sacrificed to idols, but Paul said if that caused one to stumble to set that right aside, so much so he said in 1 Cor. 8:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.’ I’m sorry that just doesn’t sound like a man going around asserting his rights.

John,
While i agree with you here, we as Christians want the right to be able to proclaim the Gospel in every nation. Its not that we don’t proclaim it where it is prohibited, but that it is much harder and more dangerous.
And if we ‘lose’ that right here in the USA, the dominoes that will fall will exponentially make the preaching of the Gospel harder throughout the world.
Likewise, we as Christians, recognizing that humans are made in the image of God promote the good rights of people everywhere to live in peace without terror, to speak their minds without censoring, and other such rights that dignify and do not degrade man. The thief comes to steal and destroy, and we oppose his works.
As INDIVIDUALS, we might forgo our rights here and there, but as ambassadors to the Kingdom of our Lord, we should collectively promote that which is right and good in the world.

blessings,
mike

Thanks for the link, Chris. Assuming the accuracy of the mayor’s report and the AJC’s report of it, I note the following.

1. Chief Cochran may have thought that a verbal OK from the Ethics Officer was sufficient, but apparently the Standards of Conduct require that department heads get approval from the Board of Ethics before printing a book that would be offered for public sale. The Ethics Officer may or may not be lying about what she told him, but here the chief is clearly hanging out on a limb since he has nothing in writing.
2. I have an extremely hard time believing “that firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.” Also, hard believing “the representation in the book that Chief Cochran is speaking in his capacity as AFRD Chief.” (I have ordered the book and may be able to discern something about this latter issue.)
3. According to the mayor, he “terminated the chief because he failed to receive required approval to publish the book, and then spoke publicly about the ordeal against the mayor’s request.” It sounds to me that Firefighters Union president Stephen Borders thought the 30-day suspension was sufficient for the first violation, so it seems like there the mayor wants to prop up more than one violation by the chief to strengthen his case. On the second I think there is little doubt that Fire Chief Cochran spoke publicly about the firing.

All in all, if the linked info is correct, this seems to not be as much about free speech as I originally thought (at least from the mayor/city’s standpoint, it is a policy issue). Nevertheless, imo, this might not have reached the level of a firing but for the pressure of the LGBT community in Atlanta. Flush from this victory, we can be sure to see more pressure from them wherever it can be applied. I think there will still be much more to this controversy, and more things may come out that tweak our view of what happened.

Robert, I think your right… this has little to do with free speech…. it is almost guaranteed that the action precipitated was from political pressure from special interest groups. The firing “appears” to be legal on the specific grounds that have been asserted, but I dare say,…this is probably in its infancy.

Since when did any free thinking American have to get approval from any Ethics outfit for expressing his rights as to freedom of speech and religion and press. Political and bureaucratic correctness are murdering our rights. Just imagine PC and BC having a necktie party for the rights, leaving the American whose life has been devoted to rescuing people from fires to starve to death. We need a law guaranteeing any one, be they mayor, ethics outfit, or LGBT group, will go to prison for such stunts.

I mentioned above that “I have ordered the book and may be able to discern something about this latter issue.”

No reasonable person would read this book and believe that Kelvin Cochran was “speaking in his capacity as AFRD Chief.” On the copyright page there is a plain statement that the “views expressed in this work are solely those of the author.” The statement that he is “Fire Chief of the City of Atlanta Fire Rescue Department” is included in the biographical information “About the Author.” He is also clear that this material is from a men’s Bible study and that those men urged him to turn it into book form. To pretend that you believe he is somehow speaking for the city of Atlanta or the Fire Department is disingenuous at best.

On page 82 Cochran lists: “Uncleanness – whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.” It is understandable that those living a homosexual lifestyle would be offended, seeing this as deliberately comparing their actions to bestiality, for example. A bible student will read this and see it as listing things that could fall under Paul’s category of “uncleanness” among the works of the flesh he mentions (not so much as comparing one to the other in degree).

I wonder if anyone has heard and “new news” on this situation?

The former chief is suing. I predict the city will settle.

Thanks, William. I suspect your prediction is right. It will be interesting to see.

Also interesting in its symbolism, I found an article that said that on Martin Luther King Jr. Day the former fire chief “swore out the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the City of Atlanta.”

William, there are many sins that are not criminalized, and homosexual behavior is one of those in my opinion. While that is an easy answer, I think the more difficult one is found in the “sausage making” of laws that encourage homosexual acts, or would have them appear as normative. That is strategy seen at play throughout the US today.

When degrading passion, such as homosexual acts, are legitimized and encouraged by lawmaking, then citizens should be encouraged not only to object, but they should be encourage to present normative behavior. The objection is certainly well beyond understanding why the behavior is non-normative scientifically. It goes to tax payer cost, and tax payer responsibility as well. In other words, should I be held accountable to pay for the poor judgement of an individual.

There is certainly nothing wrong with making good laws that do not encourage homosexual behavior, since that behavior is very costly to the individual, and is now being included in health coverage that is quickly becoming a single payer system. The lobbyists for homosexual groups certainly understand that taxes are then dolled out as a protection to those engaged in homosexual acts, where science has clearly shown that the behavior causes the spread of disease and harm to the individuals.

Christians, as well as non-Christians alike should be worried about cost, and the effect of a law to encourage degrading passion.

The fire chief certainly understood the normative scientific evidence for sexual behavior, and got that part right, yet his insubordination became the reason for his dismissal. Again, I think there is quite a bit more at play in Atlanta on this subject. Atlanta is a popular spot for protests between normative sexual behavior and the degrading passion of homosexual acts.

So, the argument advanced is that government has a secular interest in not “encourag[ing]” homosexual behavior. Any laws that grant equal rights to such are seen to be “encouraging” and on the basis of public health and economic costs, government is justified in not so legislating?

While I understand the difficulty in regard to secular law of not being able to argue on the basis that such behavior is sinful or that God will punish the nation for encouraging it, I don’t see a lot of strength in arguing on the basis of public health. That’s a loser in several ways, not the least is that a Baptist minister standing before some legislative body is far more likely to be obese and unhealthy, with attendant public costs, than the general populace.

If we are to argue on the basis of a secular purpose in not codifying same sex marriage (moot at this point since we have lost that battle) then a better argument is that the birth rate is likely to be undermined and it is critical to the nation’s welfare.

Sometimes questions get buried here but I was asking, a couple of times I think, about your view of gays being protected in the workplace. That is really what the case in Atlanta hinges on, since citizens of Atlanta want such to be the case and their duly elected representatives have passed laws accordingly. Should the state or federal government pass laws that prevent localities from protecting their citizens on this basis?

I think I also asked you to elaborate about biblical laws in the context of the history of nations. You did make the assertion about something along those lines “throughout history.”

These aren’t simple questions in a free society.

William, laws are, and should be made that “do” protect citizens, period. Those that classify themselves as “Gay” should be protected.

……………..

On these other points…

“While I understand the difficulty in regard to secular law of not being able to argue on the basis that such behavior is sinful or that God will punish the nation for encouraging it, I don’t see a lot of strength in arguing on the basis of public health. That’s a loser in several ways, not the least is that a Baptist minister standing before some legislative body is far more likely to be obese and unhealthy, with attendant public costs, than the general populace.”

Anyone can argue on any basis. Whether it is heard is up to the listener. So, I would not let “secular” bias impinge your ability to tell the truth. The fact is that homosexual acts are degraded passion, and the consequences of those acts are easily shown scientifically as hugely damaging to the tissue of the persons engaged in that activity. Who pays for repairing the damage is important to a society of tax payers.

It is easy to point out the sin of homosexual acts, yet it is much more difficult to tell the truth about the damage it tolls out on the persons engaged in the acts. The brutal reality is that it cost millions and millions of dollars to mitigate this damage, and someone pays for the mitigation. Laws are implemented to sort that out. I guarantee you that insurance companies care if someone smokes, drinks alcohol, and acts on many different fronts.

“I think I also asked you to elaborate about biblical laws in the context of the history of nations. You did make the assertion about something along those lines “throughout history.””……..

Can you help me understand your question a little better?

Roman 7…the Law is Holy. No one could live up to the Law, except Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the Law.

“There is certainly nothing wrong with making good laws that do not encourage homosexual behavior, since that behavior is very costly to the individual, and is now being included in health coverage that is quickly becoming a single payer system. ”

We are fast becoming a nation of Twinkie police supported by the IRS and will be deluged with “scientific proof” that homosexual sex is no more damaging than heterosexual funded by the government. The insurance companies proved how naïve they were when they believed Obama.

All of this is one reason why I think the Evangelical community misses the larger points of the real damage out there: Government control and micromanagement of our lives. But they cannot make that argument because they basically want control, too, in other areas of course.

You know, we had to live with legal abortion but what happened because some finally took an educational loving approach to the problem? Abortions have continually dropped. There used to be 5 very busy abortion mills in my city. Now there is one barely hanging on except for all the grant money because of government micromanagement.

Why can’t people take the same approach to homosexuality? It is not going away. The less money the government has to micromanage us, the more power we have to not only love and educate but the freedom to have civil discourse which we are quickly losing because any view that does not endorse is seen as “hateful”.

Lydia,

I have a question not really related to the main topic, but something you said.

“You know, we had to live with legal abortion but what happened because some finally took an educational loving approach to the problem? Abortions have continually dropped.”

I’ve been wondering and maybe you know the answer or where to find out. I’ve also watched the number of abortions drop in the reported numbers. While I’m thankful for that, as I suspect most here are, do you know if abortifacients are even reported or required to be reported.

I fear that the drop in reported abortion mill numbers may be largely due to the easily available abortifacients, but I don’t know where to find out if they is so. Do you know?

Thanks.

Les,

At least one source for the numerical drop is from a study by the Guttmacher Institute. “The study’s authors hypothesize that improvements in contraceptive use—in particular, a shift to highly effective methods—were a main contributing factor.” Others have argued that new state regulations are feeding the declines, and I remember reading in one place a theory that the fact that there is no longer much stigma on unwed mother’s & out-of-wedlock births relieves some of the pressure for abortions. I would expect it could be a combination of all these factors.

Thank Robert. I really should have just asked the question of anyone anyway. Lydia is just the one who brought it up and I thought she might know.

You’re probably right. There’s probably no way to know, but I suspect the drug induced abortions are on the rise but we’ll never know since the reporting would have to be voluntary. Women would have to report their “meds” used and I just don’t see that happening.

Thanks again.

Robert,

I think your research correlates with what we were tracking locally years back. This was back when I was involved in looking at such things. We even saw a drop when 3-D imaging became widely available and Crisis Pregnancy centers were able to use them. But along with that, much help was offered by way of health care, living helps, etc, by private donors and volunteers for single moms facing this alone. So it wasn’t just showing a female in distress “Silent Scream” and using shame as the motivator. It was real time problem solving and supports. Makes a huge difference.

Les, I am never sure what folks mean by abortifacients. There are groups out there that think any birth control is an abortifacient because of the way it works. But no, I am not sure if that is part of the measurement or not.

Thanks Lydia. By “abortifacients” I am referring to drugs commonly referred to as the “morning after pills.” Drugs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Not common forms of birth control which prevent fertilization.

I thought I remembered you being involved in the past in crisis pregnancy center types of ministries…that I had read that. So I thought you might know.

Anyway, I celebrate the drop in abortions but I’m also wondering if the numbers are hiding the fact of morning after pills preventing many from ever needing to get to the place of walking into an abortion clinic. i.e. are we fooling ourselves a bit.

Thanks Lydia and Robert.

It strikes me as curious that many Americans who will stand up for the rights of Charlie Hebdo to produce an offensive (to many) satirical magazine will not stand up for the rights of Christians to express offensive (to many) views.

I have no objection to Christians expressing offensive views….only with them getting people fired.

Agreed. Someone said that we don’t need laws to protect the speech that we like. We need laws to protect the speech we hate. That is free speech.