C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.


Friday, June 15, 2007

Romans 1 Is Out Of Order: Shut Your Mouth!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105

10 comments:

BEAST said...

Again, your stupidity knows no bounds:

This law need not have been enacted if Christians didn't take it upon themselves to persecute and in some cases, cause bodily harm to gays.

Larro said...

Sorry. I do follow politics and Capital Hill, but I am not sure what your reference is to Roman 1 as I am not so bible literate. I see the labels for this post are hate crimes, homosexuality and morality...and according to Romans 1 (at least to my interpretation) this post would be about tolerance for the key label; homosexuality, which is not worded...

"H.R. 1592 is ultimately a Thought Crimes law which aims to silence biblical Judeo-Christian speech and beliefs about homosexuality and “transgenderism.”"

I see now, I think. I'm still confused about the reference to Romans 1.

I found it. Yes, flipping pages and reading.

Romans 1:26 (NIV)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations with unnatural ones.
1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. and received in themselves the due penalty for their conversion.

I will skip to 1:32

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also also approve of those who practice them.

Be proud of me. I typed word for word here. No copy and paste.

I will assume that this post is invariably about Romans 1:32 right?

If so, then you believe that this should be written into federal law.

I wrote an email a short while ago before I read your posts which started out kinda of heated and then toned down as I calmed down.

Guess what? Heated up again...

This kind of bigoted, misogynistic bullshit is what makes the world go round...in a wobbly, erratic and opposite direction.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Hmmm...

A catchy title, two links with a conjunction and that shows stupidy.... Okay.


larro - I don't quite follow your post, so I will try to explain mine a little more.

I am not that political myself but I do get emails from different sites all the time, hence the links to these two bills. According to the authors of the links, they claim: "House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion."

Hence why the labels Hate Crimes, Homosexuality, Morality. Not that I really gave it much thought but, Hate Crimes due to the point of the bills, Homosexuality due to the item discussed, Morality due to the moral issue of homosexuality.

Hence why the title Romans 1 Is Out Of Order: Shut Your Mouth! For according the the authors of the links these bills would cause problems for those which speak out against homosexuality, then that could/would ultimately lead to one not being able to preach or speak of Romans 1 where Scripture declares homosexuality to be wrong (a sin).

How you came to the conclusion that I am even suggesting that we should write into law that all homosexuals (plus all of the other sins contained in 3 verses) should be put to death, I find most interesting. Funny thing is that had not even entered my mine in the less than five mintues it took me to type and link this original post.

So to answer your question, no verse 32 really had no baring at all on the simple post.

By not taking my post at face value, but trying to search for a deeper meaning, then getting upset over unfounded assumptions taking one verse above all others which is not mentioned in either link or my post, has caused you to become bigoted toward me. And how you use such as word as misogynistic (hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women) I haven't a clue.

I will leave you with a couple of good points from Romans 1.

[1] God has showed us and manifested in us that we may know Him.
[2] We go very far astray when we don't glorify God as God.

Hope this clears up what you may have thought I was thinking, but wasn't.

BEAST said...

I have read through the bill, and honestly, I think you missed the point.

The law is not an impediment of free speech....you can still spill your vitriol against gays....it is more of a provision to protect gay rights, the same kind of thing that protects the rights of the colored people.

The way you write this article, it seems that the bible is somehow "censored". It isn't, but there again, the bible is irrelevant in secular law.

America is a secular country, and it is best to keep it that way.

The Alpha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

I am not as versed as others in these political bills, but I now have a headache having spent some time reading about them today. It appears that most of the opposition comes to what these bills may actually give foundation for or further lead into in the future. It appears that the homosexual issue is at the highest level in the bill due to the recent debates concerning it and marriage, etc.

A few questions I still have are:

1] The idea of what exactly does “sexual orientation” mean? One site calls it “A serious deficiency in the bill”. Although today some may hold it to ONLY mean heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, as seen with the word “marriage” it could easily be challenged and/or changed in the future. This is something that could easily be changed to include the three sexual preferences instead of using a broad term that could change meaning easily.

2] I am still not sure I understand the relevance for a difference in “violent crimes” verses “hate crimes”. If we already have laws that cover violence against anyone, what is the need for yet another system? We all know that lawyers will play this card every chance they get searching for even the smallest thing to use.

If a Christian (or person that believes homosexuality is wrong) kills a homosexual (whether they know or don’t know they are) will/can they be charged with a “hate crime” for the holding the belief and speaking out that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God? Why should a heterosexual that kills a homosexual (let’s say they hate homosexuals) receive a harsher sentence than if a homosexual kills another homosexual (hating them for any other reason)?

3] It appears the free speech comes in with what could be used against one for “hate crime” status. Let’s say a pastor (or anyone) is preaching (are stating) that homosexuality is a sin against God, is immoral, etc. by using the reference of Romans 1. As seen by this simple post, one person assumed I was only interested in using vs. 23 (“they which commit such things are worthy of death”). [**note**]

Let’s say a person in the congregation (or listening) takes the verse to mean one personally needs to kill homosexuals. Would this cause the pastor (or speaker) to be held as a partner in crime or the fault of the crime even if he didn’t say “kill homosexuals”?

First thought may say, “No”, but today people are always looking for a way out and lawyers have made a pretty good job at passing the buck (or at least some of it) to other people as to saying they caused so and so to do such and such. Then both parties are guilty, yet the person that did the actual crime gets a lesser sentence by saying that they other persuaded them to do so.

----------
[**note]**I was/am not advocating putting to death and/or violent crimes against homosexuals, for all sin is worthy of God’s punishment (Galatians 5:19-21). This is why we need forgiveness found only in the Savior Jesus Christ**

The Alpha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean said...

Beast, honestly, you miss the point which has implications much larger than just the secular vs the church.

"it is more of a provision to protect gay rights"

There is a difference between group rights and individual rights. In this case, the law is creating a group right which infringes on individual right. In more simple terms this bill puts more importance on crimes committed against one group as opposed to another.

"I don't believe the actual language of the proposed statute hinders free speech."

You are being naive. This bill lays the foundation against free speech because by its vague language allows people to be prosecuted for their very thoughts. In fact, similar laws such as those in Europe are being used against certain "other" unprotected groups.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

AFA response to Snopes.com

The Alpha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.