ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Bow not before Caesar

Unlike the Episcopalians and Anglicans, the Southern Baptists are standing strong against government-imposed abomination and the legal parody of marriage:
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Texas, said American Christians should be prepared for massive fallout if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex unions.

“We want to stay in the system,” Graham told me in a telephone interview. “We want to work in the system. We want to support our government. We want to obey its laws.”

But.

“But there’s a coming a day, I believe, that many Christians personally and churches corporately will need to practice civil disobedience on this issue.”

The foundation for such a possibility was laid Wednesday morning in Columbus, Ohio where the current and former presidents of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination sent a strong message to the country. 

“We strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design for life and relationships,” the statement declared.

While affirming their love for all people – regardless of sexual orientation, the former Southern Baptist presidents said they “cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God’s design for marriage.”

“Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man,” they emphatically stated.
It has become abundantly clear that the U.S. federal government is increasingly opposed to the U.S. Constitution, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. And like every other government that has been foolish enough to take on the Body of Christ throughout history, it will demand obedience in vain.

Of course the lukewarm and the nominal believers will fall in line and fall away, that is what they always do. But as the pressure mounts, the faith of the faithful will grow harder and stronger, until their oppressors break upon it like a pane of glass striking a diamond.

Labels: ,

971 Comments:

1 – 200 of 971 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 18, 2015 8:03 AM  

My guess is that people making comments like above are from 503 churches feeling the heat from the home church movement. Yes I'm cynical about churchmen

Anonymous p-dawg June 18, 2015 8:09 AM  

“We want to stay in the system,” Graham told me in a telephone interview. “We want to work in the system. We want to support our government. We want to obey its laws.”

Versus:

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Who wins?

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 18, 2015 8:19 AM  

Biblically, females represent churches and not governments.

So it's even worse than you think, p-dawg

Anonymous Menelaus June 18, 2015 8:23 AM  

Southern Baptist is not Protestant.

Anonymous Anonymous June 18, 2015 8:25 AM  

fnd: Meanwhile on feminine imperative https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/dont-blame-heartiste-for-the-equation-of-alpha-with-virtue/

God doesn't like effeminate males, so is the Southern Baptists teaching their men to be manly so their wives can love them? But even if that is the case, will bad boys go to heaven too?

Anonymous Earl June 18, 2015 8:32 AM  

SCOTUSblog expects one or more opinions today at 10am.

Blogger maniacprovost June 18, 2015 8:39 AM  

In your face, other denominations.

Blogger Loyd Jenkins June 18, 2015 8:43 AM  

Christians who seriously want to serve God have had to consider this. Many of us have made the decision to put God over government. I especially, since I am an ordained minister and perform weddings.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 18, 2015 8:45 AM  

Check out Bob Jones University v. United States for how this will play out.

Anonymous Stingray June 18, 2015 8:50 AM  

But as the pressure mounts, the faith of the faithful will grow harder and stronger

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? Is it pride? Doubt? They don't see it because they see the moderates fall into line? How is it that SJWs cannot see what is right in front of them?

It is to our advantage for sure, but I cannot fathom how they cannot see the obvious.

Anonymous Tom Joad June 18, 2015 8:51 AM  

Southern Baptists: On the wrong side of history from the beginning.

The Southern Baptist church was created in opposition to ending slavery. They opposed desegregation and the civil rights act. Is there any surprise that the Southern Baptist church continues to oppose progress?

Anonymous SS June 18, 2015 8:54 AM  

Southern Baptist is not Protestant.

Any church that isn't RCC in the west is considered Protestant, so yes, they are.

Blogger Bobo #117 June 18, 2015 8:54 AM  

To paraphrase the old saw, the (true) church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.
(Please don't start the RCC shit)

As a recovering Southern Baptist, I'm proud that they're trying to grow a set. Let the refining process begin.

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2015 8:54 AM  

11. Tom Joad June 18, 2015 8:51 AM
Is there any surprise that the Southern Baptist church continues to oppose progress?


you will now provide your authority for asserting that homo marriage is 'progress'.

do you likewise agree that polygamy should be legalized?

Anonymous RedBane June 18, 2015 8:55 AM  

The SPC caved to the demonic in 1971 when the formally resolved to support abortion in all those socially acceptable and sensitive case scenarios that invariably lead to de-facto abortion-on-demand.The are fully signed on to the culture of death imho. When you deny the ontological reality of human life and its sanctity, nothing else matters.

There is only one Christian denomination left that still defends all areas of historical morality, for now at least.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 8:57 AM  

Here's how this will play out.

The SBC will initially make a lot of strongly worded statements against gay marriage and for civil disobedience.

Over the next couple of weeks, the media will work assiduously to find Southern Baptists, especially those who are entryists into their educational institutions, who disagree with the convention, and who will be more than happy to do so loudly and proudly in front of a camera.

The dissenters will then be held up as the "real" Christians and lionised by the media and the establishment.

The SBC leadership will back down.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 8:58 AM  

Any church that isn't RCC in the west is considered Protestant, so yes, they are.

Speak for yourself Bubba.

Anonymous A Visitor June 18, 2015 8:58 AM  

"Denominational leaders are warning churches and Christian schools to be prepared for potential lawsuits from LGBT activists as well as the threat of losing tax exempt status."

How would it look instead of just 16 million Southern Baptists engaging in civil disobedience if in excess of 100 million Christians of all different denominations in the U.S. do that? What if people simply refused to acknowledge the Court's decision en masse and did not abide by it?

"Check out Bob Jones University v. United States for how this will play out."

Kratman! He speaks!

"(Please don't start the RCC shit)"

Not gonna.

It's high time for many to decide who they serve, God or man. If, per another commenter, SCOTUS Blog is right, and we get a ruling at 10 am, and it goes the way I unfortunately think it will (anti-homo "marriage" laws being struck down) it's going to get interesting fast.

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2015 8:59 AM  

12. SS June 18, 2015 8:54 AM
Any church that isn't RCC in the west is considered Protestant, so yes, they are.



for those who are ignorant, sure.

for those who are a bit more historically knowledgeable, no.

a - there are Orthodox ( older than the church in Rome ) and Ethiopan churches in the West. probably some Oriental ( also ~2000 years old ) churches as well. no one has EVER considered them 'protestant'

b - the RCC has been killing people who have read the bible and derived Baptist principles for ~1000 years, well before Luther.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 9:00 AM  

you will now provide your authority for asserting that homo marriage is 'progress'.

Shoot, at this point, it's time to start questioning whether desegregation was progress...

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 18, 2015 9:01 AM  

I don't see why people are concerned. No church, synagogue, or whatever has ever had to marry two people it didn't want to marry -- and they will never be forced too. Even thinking of the possibility is absurd.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 9:03 AM  

I don't see why people are concerned. No church, synagogue, or whatever has ever had to marry two people it didn't want to marry -- and they will never be forced too. Even thinking of the possibility is absurd.

Then why are they being made to do so in Europe right now?

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2015 9:05 AM  

9. Tom Kratman June 18, 2015 8:45 AM
Check out Bob Jones University v. United States for how this will play out.


"Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983 in an 8-1 decision ...
The ban on interracial dating was lifted in 2000 after Dr. Bob Jones III, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush"


*scratches head*

so, the Baptists will hold to their principles until attacked from their own side of the aisle?

anyways, as i've previously pointed out, BJU is one of those institutions which attempts to substitute a college divinity degree for the biblical requirements for church leadership and pastorship.

so they're already un-biblical in this regard.

Blogger Owen June 18, 2015 9:13 AM  

I don't see why people are concerned. No church, synagogue, or whatever has ever had to marry two people it didn't want to marry -- and they will never be forced too. Even thinking of the possibility is absurd.

And a few years ago, people thought it would be absurd to win a court case against a business willing to sell anything to gay, but wouldn't make them a wedding cake due to religious beliefs.

It will be incrementally imposed.

First, they will strip non-profit status from the churches who refuse to marry gays.

Once taxable, they will layer on the regulations. What? Freedom of religion you say? Well, the government will still protect the freedom to practice religion in "recognized" churches. It will be easy to spot those churches. They will have tax exempt status.

On the private sector side, the few that do stand firm will be hit with nuisance suits and civil law suits and they will strip any asset from those churches.

Until all that is left are churches who marry gays.

So, will the government "force" churches to marry gays? Well, if you don't - it will push a plan to ensure the only ones left standing compromise their religious beliefs.

Except mosques, of course.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 9:18 AM  

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

They won't back down. They purged their ranks over 20 years ago and the SJWs as they are called now are still stinging and are still angry. Some of the leadership have been quietly telling their churches to be prepared to lose their 503c status.

But assuming you are right, can you name three social issues of equal significance to gay marriage that the SBC backed down on? Where's the precedent?

Anonymous SS June 18, 2015 9:19 AM  

bob - I may have worded it poorly, but I stand by it. I was referring to churches that are primarily considered western churches. The Orthodox church, at least in the circles I run, is considered more of an eastern church (it was founded in the Middle East, was it not?). That says nothing of where they may have individual bodies. I'm not really interested in every other off-shoot in this definition, but my original point was just to note that Southern Baptists are definitely considered Protestants.

Anonymous GermanyGuy June 18, 2015 9:21 AM  

How would "civil disobedience" against marriage for all look ? Would you refuse to marry another person of your own gender ?
Thats going to show everybody how though and intelligent you are. You could form a flying suicide squad, I heard there is a movie with a formation like that out from some british guys....

Anonymous Tom Joad June 18, 2015 9:25 AM  

14. Bob K. Mondo: you will now provide your authority for asserting that homo marriage is 'progress'.

do you likewise agree that polygamy should be legalized?


The right to marry is a fundamental liberty (see Loving v. Virginia). Essential to that liberty is the right to marry the person of your choosing (assuming that person also chooses you, and is of age and able to consent).

Polygamy is a distraction that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage or the effort to deny consenting adults the right to marry the person of their choice.

Anonymous Leonidas June 18, 2015 9:25 AM  

So, will the government "force" churches to marry gays? Well, if you don't - it will push a plan to ensure the only ones left standing compromise their religious beliefs.

Like too many others, you haven't read your history. Christianity thrives under adversity, and always has. Many will cave. Some will not. In another two thousand years, Christianity will resemble those who didn't cave more than those who did.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 9:26 AM  

What's infuriating to me in just about 25 comments is the utter defeatism from our side. Every. Damn. Time. No matter the issue, no matter how someone makes a stand, here comes the Noble Defeatists to tell everyone how things are getting worse, it won't matter, the person doing the right thing didn't do enough or do it right, there's no hope, and the other side will eventually win.

If you have this attitude get off the firing line, shut the hell up, and go live in a damn cave somewhere. You're worse than the other side because at least they don't shoot us in the back.

Anonymous Niccolò Arminius June 18, 2015 9:26 AM  

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."
" But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Who is supposed to be the governing authority (Caesar) in the constitutional system? The voter.
Who is supposed to bear the sword under our constitutional system? The militia ( a standing army is a threat to liberty) which is presently defined by the USC as all able bodied males between 18 and 45.

It's past time to administer punishment to the usurping malefactors in Washington. I won't be holding my breath, though.

BTW: Protestant or not, the SBC still retains many trappings introduced in Constantine's imperial takeover that we do not find in the New Testament. Things like full time paid "clergy" (only missionaries received financial support), basilicas, communion in place of the meal, top down rule (Baptist churches do get to elect and fire their mini-pope), monogamy, etc.

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 9:26 AM  

EVERY Caesar-created 'faith-based' corporate creation of 'another master' masquerading as a church has ALREADY bowed before Caesar. And, as the caricature of the Messiah that they claim to worship, but do not obey (John 14:15) has noted, "they have their reward."

And now they're getting it "good and hard."

Those who plan to practice 'civil disobedience' need to make sure they know Who they serve, FIRST. And then they'd be well-advised to read the story of Joshua's "deal with the devil," in the form of the Gibeonites.

Blogger Owen June 18, 2015 9:32 AM  

How would "civil disobedience" against marriage for all look ?

Passing a resolution at a national convention declaring the marriage ceremonies held in affiliated churches cannot be considered "legal marriage" for purposes related to medical benefits, government assistance or recognition, or any other use in a civil, criminal, family, or other court. Current marriages grandfathers. Future marriages must have a separate ceremony with a JP to obtain a state approved marriage. Note: even if the couple doesn't seek a state marriage license, there can still be legal protections and actions open to the man or woman, but it wouldn't be any different than existing common law or related relationships.

Blogger IM2L844 June 18, 2015 9:32 AM  

There's that word, duty, again. I like it. The left, however, never stops trying to conscript words and pervert their meaning. Duty is an obligatory absolute. When people like Phil "Verberabilis" (Flog-worthy) Sandifer use it, they don't mean the same thing I do when I use it. Leftists say things like, "We have a duty to treat all people with respect". No we don't, but that's not what they really mean anyway. It's just another weasel word used to elicit "feelings" in order to advance their ideology's backhanded othering of people who think of duty as a true universal categorical imperative. “Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man” sums it up beautifully.

Anonymous Cash June 18, 2015 9:35 AM  

Way to go SBC.. John Piper warned his church in his last sermon that they will lose their tax free status for standing their ground a couple years ago.

Bring it on.......

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 9:36 AM  

How would "civil disobedience" against marriage for all look ?

Forget civil disobedience. I'm all for the full on nullification route myself.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 9:36 AM  

It has become abundantly clear that the U.S. federal government is increasingly opposed to the U.S. Constitution, the Bible, and Jesus Christ.

The prophet Isaiah truly spoke to the people of our times when he said O My people! Their oppressors are children and women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths." Isaiah 3:12

The key to this issue is an 1878 Supreme Court ruling (Meister v Moore) that marriage is a fundamental right and state laws requiring a marriage license are "merely directory." That ruling has never been overturned. The reason such laws are "merely directory" (nothing more than a polite suggestion) is because a license is a permission from a competent authority to do something you don't have the right to do. Ergo, since marriage is a fundamental right, you don't need anybody's permission (license) to get married. But, directly reflecting God's Law, there is a reason such laws requiring a license to marry were enacted.

Last time I looked up the definition of "marriage license" in a legal dictionary it said a marriage license is a special license issued to persons who intend to intermarry. Looking that up and I find that the term "intermarriage" says "see miscegenation." I look up miscegenation and discover that the term means the mixing of the races, as between a white and a negro. Laws requiring a license to marry did not come into general use until the period following the passage of the 14th Amendment, the same general period in which the Supreme Court heard the case Meister v Moore.

The real issue here is not the sanctioning of illegitimate unions but rather trying to keep Christians who are involved in the idolatry of licensed marriages from learning the truth and running off the reservation. Marriage belongs to God. Full stop. He created it (Genesis 2:24), said that He has a part in joining the husband and wife in marriage (Matthew 19:6) and He provided His regulations for marriage (Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3, 1st Corinthians 7, etc.). Ergo Sum, marriage belongs to God, not Caesar.

Therefore, it is idolatry for a Christian to seek permission from the state in the form of a license to marry. Such idolatry results in the state claiming to be a party to the marriage (replacing God) and thus claims an equitable interest in all assets thereof. The most valuable assets of the marriage, of course, are the children. God says He is the one who opens and closes the womb and says children are a gift from Him. But Christians don't know this stuff and the real question before the court isn't whether the union of two men can be called a marriage, but whether the states can be forced to include such a union in their scheme of licensed marriage.

SCOTUS is thus caught on the horns of a dilemma. They want to continue the status quo in which Christians willingly give up their rights through an act of idolatry by going to the state, seeking their permission to marry rather than marrying by right according to God’s Law. Upsetting that applecart might cause people to listen to the truth about marriage and leave the reservation, so the court is looking for a good excuse to order the sanctioning of the state to illicit unions without anybody learning the truth.

The so-called churches are powerless because they too offered their pinch of incense to the genius of Caesar and publicly declared Jesus Christ is not the author and founder of the church, but rather the state. Find the case Hale v Henkel (cited in over 1600 judicial opinions) and look at what the court said about corporations. In fact, other than the Amish, Mennonites and a few of the Brethren Fellowships I do not know of any churches in the United States.

The subject in this case is so-called "gay marriage" but the issue it lays squarely before Christendom is idolatry. If there be judgment let it begin at the house of the Lord.

Anonymous anonymous coward June 18, 2015 9:38 AM  

...the RCC has been killing people who have read the bible and derived Baptist principles for ~1000 years, well before Luther.

Yes, and these people were (and are) called 'Gnostics'. Glad to see that you're finally recognizing your true spiritual ancestors.

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 9:39 AM  

Any church that isn't RCC in the west is considered Protestant, so yes, they are.

The test is whether a 'church' accepts RCC presumed authority to override the Written Word of YHVH. So, any 'church' that accepts their mandate for sun-god-day worship, while ignoring the Commandments of YHVH to "keep MY appointed feasts FOREVER" is part of that apostasy, whether they admit it or not.

As Paul said, "you are his servant whom you submit yourself to obey."

Hmm, that fits here in the whole 'licensed marriage' sideshow, too, doesn't it?

(and PS>

For those who can't understand, and pose non-sequitors like this:
"should polygamy [sic] be legalized?"
...you'll never understand what the USSC is doing.

Marriage, as defined by YHVH in His Word, is "LAWFUL", period. And He allows a man more than one wife; just read it. Licensed whoring is another matter, as the 501c(3) licensed church is fixin' to find out. )

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2015 9:39 AM  

28. Tom Joad June 18, 2015 9:25 AM
The right to marry is a fundamental liberty (see Loving v. Virginia).



ah.

appealing to rights created out of thin air by judges in direct violation of the 10th amendment.

exactly the same way that homo-marriage rights have been forced on the country.

iow, the Federal .gov using 'Federal Law' to constrain and limit the People and States in direct and anti-Constitutional inversion of the founding principles of the country.

well done.


28. Tom Joad June 18, 2015 9:25 AM
Polygamy is a distraction that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage or the effort to deny consenting adults the right to marry the person of their choice.


you are SOOOOOO casually racist against muslim women. who live in the US.




26. SS June 18, 2015 9:19 AM
bob - I may have worded it poorly, but I stand by it.


*shrugs*

as i said, colloquially, there is no point in arguing with you.

technically though, it is not correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2015 9:41 AM  

37. anonymous coward June 18, 2015 9:38 AM
Yes, and these people were (and are) called 'Gnostics'.



nice to see that you're not merely a coward, you're also a bald faced liar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

you wouldn't mind telling us which denomonination you profess, would you?

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 9:41 AM  

@Jartstar

' here comes the Noble Defeatists to tell everyone how things are getting worse, it won't matter, '

Things are observably worse. No point in denying reality. And Christ said we are expected to fight the good fight, but not necessarily have an expectation of winning. Our actions do indeed matter in the grand scheme, even if the results are disappointing from a purely temporal perspective.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 9:45 AM  

The right to marry is a fundamental liberty

SCOTUS already disagreed with you in 1971 in the Baker v. Nelson case when it dismissed the case (which was filed for mandatory appellate review) on appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

What that means is that the SCOTUS effectively ruled that the FedGov had no standing to rule on state marriage laws defining marriage between a man and a woman (as Minnesota's did in 1971, which was being challenged). and it did so in a way which constituted a decision on the merits of the case, and thus established it as stare decesis precedent.

Implicitly, the court said that there is a world of difference between a state banning marriage between a man and a woman of different races, which is nevertheless a "natural" marriage, and a state banning marriage between two men, which is "unnatural."

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 9:47 AM  

@Mark Call

'Marriage, as defined by YHVH in His Word, is "LAWFUL", period. And He allows a man more than one wife; just read it'

Hmmmm...:

Mathew 19: 4-6 ' Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife[singular], and they two shall be in one flesh.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 9:48 AM  

Yes, and these people were (and are) called 'Gnostics'. Glad to see that you're finally recognizing your true spiritual ancestors.

There's always one retard in every crowd, it seems.

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 9:50 AM  

EVERY Caesar-created 'faith-based' corporate creation of 'another master' masquerading as a church has ALREADY bowed before Caesar. And, as the caricature of the Messiah that they claim to worship, but do not obey (John 14:15) has noted, "they have their reward."

And now they're getting it "good and hard."

Those who plan to practice 'civil disobedience' need to make sure they know Who they serve, FIRST. And then they'd be well-advised to read the story of Joshua's "deal with the devil," in the form of the Gibeonites.

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 9:59 AM  

Red -- (re: Matthew 19)

You pick one verse, take it out of context, and then imply that constitutes "proof" allowing you to ignore the totality of Scripture?

Blogger IM2L844 June 18, 2015 9:59 AM  

bob k. mando, I have to say I like the format you use for your responses. I would adopt it myself if I didn't know that simply bolding a reference then entering a response annoys Markku a little bit. Guilty pleasures...

Blogger Zaklog the Great June 18, 2015 10:00 AM  

@Tom Joad, would you support the rights of a man seeking to marry his sister? After all, you said marrying who you choose is essential to that right. If not, why not? And how would you distinguish this from homosexual "marriage"?

Anonymous Cash June 18, 2015 10:01 AM  

Well this thread went fast.......

Anonymous Niccolò Arminius June 18, 2015 10:04 AM  

@ Red Bane

Mathew 19: 4-6 ' Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife[singular], and they two shall be in one flesh.

That's because the man can only copulate (be one flesh) with one wife at a time. Next!

Anonymous Cash June 18, 2015 10:05 AM  

There are always people like Mark Call there to stab you in the back........

Anonymous ZhukovG June 18, 2015 10:07 AM  

I swear this constant RCC vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox bickering is like a frontier family arguing the finer points of duck hunting while a grizzly bear is tearing the front door off its hinges.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 10:07 AM  

@ Marl Call

'You pick one verse, take it out of context, and then imply that constitutes "proof" allowing you to ignore the totality of Scripture?'

How many verses would do it? Seemed pretty clear cut to me. Genesis also promotes monogamy as do early Church Fathers like Tertullian . Mathew 19 was a repeat of Genesis 2:24. Full circle. Jesus said that many Old testament practices were allowed due to hardness of heart. They were later abrogated.

Ephesians 5:23 ' the husband is the head of the wife' [singular]

Anonymous Hong Hu Shi June 18, 2015 10:09 AM  

There are always people like Mark Call there to stab you in the back........

Use of superfluous periods is not an argument. Don't be a bitch.

Anonymous Cash June 18, 2015 10:10 AM  

@52. ZhukovG

These clowns don't fall into that argument. I think they are Trail of Blood people or something.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 June 18, 2015 10:11 AM  

jury nullification........
it's not defeatism, it's the boiling frog fema camps

Anonymous Cash June 18, 2015 10:12 AM  

@ Hong

It wasn't an argument.......................................................................
It was an observation................................................

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 10:13 AM  

Southern Baptists were formed mainly over the question of missions. There were also major doctrinal divisions between Baptists. This link dies not discuss the doctrinal questions, merely the mission question. Slavery is a side note.

http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm

Blogger darkdoc June 18, 2015 10:13 AM  

Is there any surprise that the Southern Baptist church continues to oppose progress?

PROGRESS can only go in a leftward direction. Nope, no other possibility. None.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 10:14 AM  

If you have this attitude get off the firing line, shut the hell up, and go live in a damn cave somewhere. You're worse than the other side because at least they don't shoot us in the back.

Preach

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 18, 2015 10:16 AM  

Lose the 503c protection, and they will be sued within days for discrimination. 503c gives some protection for religious beliefs, dump that and you are into straight corporate law. Even organizing as private club gives little protection.

Most parishes are not currently ready to go into cell based groups. Most Churches will turn against said groups.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales June 18, 2015 10:21 AM  

@Nicolo

"monogamy..."

Go fuck yourself and take your fucking polygamy loving ass out of here you filthy fucking Mormom/and/or Hadji.

Blogger IM2L844 June 18, 2015 10:21 AM  

I swear this constant RCC vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox bickering is like a frontier family arguing the finer points of duck hunting while a grizzly bear is tearing the front door off its hinges.

True and not really funny, but it made me laugh all the same. I think Christians can sharpen iron and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Blogger FALPhil June 18, 2015 10:23 AM  

Tom Joad wrote:

Is there any surprise that the Southern Baptist church continues to oppose progress?


While the history of the SBC regarding slavery is not in question, why would any sane person see extending marriage to homosexuals progress? As has been mentioned many times on this blog, homosexuality and the acceptance of it is dyscivic. It negatively affects the greater good.

The right to marry is a fundamental liberty (see Loving v. Virginia). Essential to that liberty is the right to marry the person of your choosing (assuming that person also chooses you, and is of age and able to consent).
But, from a logical perspective, as the Sixth Circuit noted, the context of Loving is within the accepted definition of marriage. Homosexual unions were never even alluded to in the case as it worked its way through the system. From an historical context standpoint your argument holds no water.

Anonymous Earl June 18, 2015 10:28 AM  

No decision on fag marriage or 0bamacare today. TX license plates constitute government speech though.

Blogger WATYF #0222 June 18, 2015 10:32 AM  

OT: Speaking of Caesar....

What's your take on Rand Paul's recent article about his Flat Tax proposal?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/blow-up-the-tax-code-and-start-over-1434582592

I'm not too hip on eliminating tariffs (but it's to be expected from Paul) or not taxing incomes below $50K, but it would be a large step in the right direction (at least, much more so than any other proposal floated by a Republican).

WATYF

Blogger The Remnant June 18, 2015 10:39 AM  

People who trot out Loving v. Virginia to justify the forcible imposition of gay marriage have no idea what they're talking about. In Loving, the couple faced criminal penalties (i.e., actual deprivation of life and liberty), whereas there are no criminal penalties for gays who choose to hold a ceremony and call themselves "married." What's at issue here is whether the public will be compelled to ENDORSE gay marriage, not whether to leave gays in peace. It is the public that faces harassment and deprivation, not gays.

Moreover, Loving at least arguably fell within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment, whose goal was to ensure that all rights already possessed by whites would not be denied to the ex-slaves and their descendants (e.g., contracts, property ownership, etc.). To assert that the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes the creation of new rights or allows the Supreme Court to strip the states of their broad sovereignty over everything not specifically delegated to the federal government is offensive, both to the Tenth Amendment and the drafters of the Fourteenth (who would become physically sick if they knew that their efforts would be hijacked to support abortionists, pornographers, illegal aliens, and sodomites).

The Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, higher than any branch of the federal government. As such, the Supreme Court has no power to re-write the Constitution to suit what the Court perceives as modern sentiments; the power of amendment is reserved to us via Article V of the Constitution. What's at issue here is far broader than gay marriage; it's a question of which is supreme, the law or the government?

Bottom line, if government refuses to obey the law, we have a right and a duty not to obey the government.

Blogger Quizzer W June 18, 2015 10:43 AM  

Well said ZhukovG.

Christ: You believed I died for your sins, you did your best to follow me and live by faith, and when you stumbled you turned back to me. But you didn't understand the exact way to handle government/church affairs so, boop, off to the fiery lake with you!

Anonymous Roundtine June 18, 2015 10:48 AM  

The Catholics are busy nuking some German bishops who tried to push a shift on gay marriage and divorce, with the Africans leading the charge. They lay out the Devil's playbook, used over and over by the progressives in the 20th Century through today.

Synod. Africa’s Hour
Professor Ade's talk focused on what he called “the strategy of the Enemy of the human race.”

Given that the maximum objectives of the blessing of second marriages and of homosexual couples appear to be out of reach, this “strategy” would consist of opening loopholes that could be expanded later, naturally while affirming in words that there is no intention to change anything about doctrine.

These loopholes would be, for example, the “particular cases” illustrated by the innovators, knowing very well that they would by no means remain isolated cases.

Another clever stratagem would be that of presenting the changes as a solution “of balance” between the impatience, on one side, of those who would like divorce and homosexual marriage right away, and on the other the rigorism devoid of mercy of the discipline of the Catholic Church on marriage.

Yet another loophole would be that, already in use in many places, of giving communion to the divorced and remarried and to all couples outside of marriage, without even waiting for any decision on this matter on the part of the synod and the pope.

Moreover, Professor Ade warned against the “Trojan horses” adopted by the innovators, like that of always attributing a positive value to all relationships of life in common outside of marriage, or that of considering indissolubility as an “ideal” that cannot always be attained by everyone, or yet again of the use of new language that ends up changing the reality.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 10:49 AM  

Go fuck yourself and take your fucking polygamy loving ass out of here you filthy fucking Mormom/and/or Hadji.

Dude, chill out

Blogger Jeff Hendricks June 18, 2015 10:51 AM  

Technically, Southern Baptist isn't a denomination. It is a convention of independantly (and somewhat like-minded) governed, fully autonomous churches. No SBC church is required to adhere to what the convention subscribes theologically to be a member of the convention, as long as they 1. contribute to the Cooperative Program, and 2. do not officially, actively support or condone homosexual/sinful behavior. The result will be that they will not give you voice as a representative during the convention... but they have no power other than that. There are plenty of SBC's that are in name only.

They have made resolutions stating their position on homosexuality going back as far as 1976:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/search/results.asp?query=homosexuality

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 18, 2015 11:03 AM  

The question is not "who is Caesar?" but "what is Caesar's?"

Jesus did indeed entrapped those who sought to entrap Him.

What belongs to Caesar?

This marriage is just a small taste of the sword of government being double edged. For too long, Christians have granted the government the use of the sword for certain purposes, willfully and deliberately denying that the principles they espouse could be used to swing that sword in their direction.

If marriage is to be enforced or legalized through government, then, is it a surprise that the government gets to define marriage?

We are not to establish a Christian Kingdom on Earth. Righteousness cannot achieved through law. The Kingdom will be established and established by Jesus when He returns.

Blogger Doom June 18, 2015 11:04 AM  

Caesar? Isn't he dead yet? Again?

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 11:04 AM  

All of this posturing was irrelevant the moment the regulation of marriage was made a responsibility of the political state complete with state benefits (yes, legally married couples do receive state benefits that unmarried couples do not, hence the "discrimination" argument). The only real solution is simple, do away with any and all state recognized marriages and put the regulation of marriage back into the hands of religion. It's not going to happen, of course, but that is the only way that any recognized religion is going to be able to keep their beliefs pure.

Also, the second their tax exempt status (more government authority over the church, btw) is threatened due to their refusal to abide by the law, the remaining churches will cave in. I'm sorry, but the initial blog post isn't appropriately titled, as churches in general long ago made the decision to bow before Caesar, they were just too short sighted to see that giving the power they held at the time to the government was only going to work in their favor so long as Caesar agreed with them. Marriage has been a "legal parody" since the minute it became a purely legal designation. Homos will no more debase its meaning or importance than Britney Spears getting married for a total of less than 60 hours while on a 3 day bender in Vegas.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 11:06 AM  

JaimeInTexas beat me to it.

Blogger Bard June 18, 2015 11:09 AM  

I have a good friend that attends a very large "successful" church in town. He made the comment to me last week that his mission ground is the very church he attends. He said that he considers only around 50% to have a saving faith that sets them apart from the world. Let's not get into the "well that is not for us to decide argument", I am only relaying the conversation. IMO, this will accelerate the decline of the larger institutional churches and push it back into smaller assemblies like home gatherings. Not necessarily defeat, just change. and probably a necessary one. Now when those gatherings are targeted....

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata June 18, 2015 11:09 AM  

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Anonymous anonymous coward June 18, 2015 11:14 AM  

nice to see that you're not merely a coward, you're also a bald faced liar.

There's always one retard in every crowd, it seems.

Check your bottom, it seems a tad inflamed.

Anyways, quoting from your own beloved Wikipedia:

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge) is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. Gnostic systems ... are typically marked by:

* The notion of a remote, supreme monadic divinity
* The introduction by emanation of further divine beings
* The introduction of a distinct creator god or demiurge, which is an illusion
* The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as an "error" or flawed simulacrum of a higher-level reality
* A complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element "falls" into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings
* A doctrine of salvation in which the divine element may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening.


Fits 'sola fide' Protestantism to a tee. Also, the Wikipedia article is (IMO) is flawed -- too little emphasis on the important property of Gnostic religions: the belief in salvation as a 'liberation' of the immortal soul from the bodily shackles.

(This is a much more significant marker -- it fits not only Protestant dogma, but also modern SJW insanity, which is also an offshoot of Gnosticism. SJW is a more modern atheistic Gnosticism, while Protestant Christianity is an older, more conservative theistic Gnosticism.)

P.S. Calvinism isn't Christianity. Free will is the central keystone of the Christian faith; remove free will and the concept of the Trinity becomes unnecessary, and you devolve into gnostic heresies.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 18, 2015 11:17 AM  

“A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.”

The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748)

I do not think that this website has updated in a long time:
http://hushmoney.org/
The website is supposed to be a resource for establishing a free-church.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 11:28 AM  

Bottom line, if government refuses to obey the law, we have a right and a duty not to obey the government.

Talk to your state legislators, if they'd decent, about nullification

Blogger Quadko June 18, 2015 11:28 AM  

This isn't a threat, but the constitution is what gives Judges, Congressmen, and the President any respect, it's what makes murder illegal, and so forth. It stands or falls as a whole. If a judge sets it aside, they've just surrendered their judgeship, and are a silly person daring to sit in a taller chair than the rest of us - open to a Monty Python "taunting a second time".

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 18, 2015 11:30 AM  

do you likewise agree that polygamy should be legalized?

Polygyny is very Biblical.  Why aren't all Christians in favor of it?

it's time to start questioning whether desegregation was progress...

If you're just starting, you're very late to the party.  Still welcome, though.  The sooner we admit that we are sick and tired of the savages (full, half, or any other non-zero fraction) the sooner the correction can begin.

Anonymous T June 18, 2015 11:42 AM  

Wouldn't it be rational to read a thread first, Rational-sama?

Cause your first point was already decimated.

Anonymous Niccolò Arminius June 18, 2015 11:50 AM  

@ Emmanuel Mateo-Morales June 18, 2015 10:21 AM

Go fuck yourself and take your fucking polygamy loving ass out of here you filthy fucking Mormom/and/or Hadji.

Emmie, you ignorant, blaspheming slut. YHWH portrays himself as a husband with two wives repeatedly in the books of the prophets. He also spills a ton of ink in the pentateuch spelling out the rules of who one can have in his harem. Augustine confessed that monogamy was nothing more than a "Roman custom" ("The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it"). and Luther agreed polygyny was permitted, but disagreed that it should be forbidden to Christians due to secular law, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter. "

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 11:53 AM  

@Red - re: how he picked one verse, and then modified it, THEN...
claimed it constituted "proof" allowing the rest of Scripture to be ignored:

How many verses would do it?

Easy: ALL of 'em, properly translated, in context. They will ALWAYS be consistent! (Whether the 'chuch fathers' did so or not. Do you ignore Mark 7, and all the other places where the"traditions of men" were HAMMERED by the Savior? "By your traditions you have made the commandments of Yah of no effect!"

God does NOT GIVE RULES for things He prohibits!!!!!!

Why do you ignore ALL the other commandments about marriage, not to mention the history (and even Yahushua's parable of TEN, not just one, virgin) -- including those that pertain to a man having more than one 'isha' [wife] by Covenant?

At least five times "male-on-male" homosexuality [specifically] is not only prohibited, by called "abomination" in the Hebrew. Strong stuff. Where then, does He say, "but if you do have to boink a bud in the butt, wear a condom?"
And, of COURSE -- make it monogamous!


Oh, wait -- that was the NEW 'church fathers', channeling the same spirit we see at work here.

This BS hardly bears repeating, but emphasizes the point! The 'whore church' is losing the licensing battle because they serve "another master". They take his licenses. They "are his servant" whom they have CHOSEN to OBEY. And they ignore Scripture, and what it says, while prattling about "traditional marriage". What utter fools! Yes, they "have their reward!"



Seemed pretty clear cut to me. Genesis also promotes monogamy as do early Church Fathers like Tertullian .

Exercise for the HONEST reader. Go find the word "monogamy" in Scripture.
(Hint: there's no such word in the original Hebrew; the concept is pagan -- "traditional", even! -- and inconsistent with the ENTIRE BASIS of "Israel:"

12 tribes, from one father and four different mothers, eventually composed of TWO houses, BOTH called "wives" by God Himself (but, hey, Who is He to argue with the 'church fathers'?) And they ALL fell into idolatry, and are STILL in exile for their whoring.

Now we see again why. And the US Supreme Court is about to rub their noses in that apostasy.

"Come out of her, My people! Do not partake of her sins [whose?] lest you partake of her plagues."

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 12:04 PM  

And you make excellent points, Niccolò Arminius. There have certainly been any number of honest clergy over the centuries who could, at least in part, read Scripture. (Luther, clearly, didn't read ENOUGH to do a Full 'reformation', or he'd have kept the Appointed Times of YHVH!)

I guess it bears repeating here that the Romanized 'church' didn't finally decide to "outlaw" polygyny until about the 9th century. There's a 'tradition' for ya. (Note that it worked so well at keeping power contained where they wanted it -- with the church, of course -- that they outlawed clergy from having ANY wives shortly thereafter. And, the rest, as we now see, "is history".)

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 12:04 PM  

Mark Call,

In the last three years have you participated in an internet discussion on another site about Christianity in which you have not done what you have done in this thread, which is instantly criticize every denomination except your own for their wildly un-Biblical beliefs according to you?

Blogger David-093 June 18, 2015 12:12 PM  

" And Christ said we are expected to fight the good fight, but not necessarily have an expectation of winning."

He NEVER, and I mean NEVER, said we're to fight without expecting to win. On the contrary, He said that the "gates of Hell will not prevail against it", which is a guarantee of ultimate victory. We're fighting battles here, you win some you lose some. But for the war? We fight to win, and we will win. The West has won many times before, and always when it looked like it looked like it was down for the count, and we'll win this time. America is not Russia circa 1930 where they meekly surrendered without a fight as the Soviets came and arrested them by the millions. We've got faith, we've got allies, we've got firearms, we've got the will, and we've got right on our side.

This is not a hopeless fight by any means.

Anonymous Quartermaster June 18, 2015 12:14 PM  

“BJU is one of those institutions which attempts to substitute a college divinity degree for the biblical requirements for church leadership and pastorship.”

How, exactly, are they doing this?

@anonymous Coward

“Yes, and these people were (and are) called 'Gnostics'. Glad to see that you're finally recognizing your true spiritual ancestors.”

If you’re serious, you haven’t a clue as to what a Gnostic is.

“So, any 'church' that accepts their mandate for sun-god-day worship, while ignoring the Commandments of YHVH to "keep MY appointed feasts FOREVER" is part of that apostasy, whether they admit it or not.”

Get serious. The RCC no more started “sun-god-day” worship than it started child sacrifice. The move to Sunday was well under way long before Augustine or the Council of Trent.

Note the model of marriage God created: one man, one woman. Polygamy is a sick parody of marriage.

“And then they'd be well-advised to read the story of Joshua's "deal with the devil," in the form of the Gibeonites.”

You really like digging holes for yourself. That was no “deal with the Devil.” It had its problems, but a deal with the devil it was not.

@ZhukovG

“I swear this constant RCC vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox bickering is like a frontier family arguing the finer points of duck hunting while a grizzly bear is tearing the front door off its hinges.”

There’s something to that, but it’s also caused by serious theological disagreements that can’t be papered over. Soteriology is at the heart of the problem, and Evangelical Churches will not ignore the problem.

“Also, the second their tax exempt status (more government authority over the church, btw) is threatened due to their refusal to abide by the law, the remaining churches will cave in.”

I think you’re right to a point, but there are many that will not cave. When the Church has been shaken in the past it has always had those who went back because they didn’t count the cost of being a follower of Christ. This shaking is going to be another existential shaking and you will have to make a choice, God or Caesar. Choose Caesar, and you will have eternal regrets.

The Church will be forced to change their praxis and return to small groups. But the Church only wins in the end, and then only when she returns with Christ to rule.

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 12:19 PM  

" . . . we are expected to fight the good fight, but not necessarily have an expectation of winning."

That's what every loser says.

Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the UPWARD CALL OF GOD in the Messiah Y'shua.

Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. (cf. Philippians 3)

What part of "upward call" don't you understand? We run the race to win, not to participate or worse yet DNF. Maybe some are just in it for the t-shirt. Go figure.

"This is not a hopeless fight by any means."

In this world you will have trouble, but take heart I have overcome the world.

Yep. I read the end of the book - we win.

Blogger David-093 June 18, 2015 12:25 PM  

"In this world you will have trouble, but take heart I have overcome the world.

Yep. I read the end of the book - we win. "

Preach it, brother

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 12:26 PM  

the kingdom of God advances forcefully and violent men take it by force

Heavenly Father, we pray for the Iranian Revival, fill those who've heard the gospel through pastor Abendini with the fire of the Holy Spirit to boldly proclaim to their neighbors that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

We pray too for revival in Pakistan, that this country would be seated, clothed, and in its right mind. Let the gospel ring out from believers in Pakistan and be evident too all with great joy amidst suffering.

Again, Father, we pray that Korea would be reunited under the banner of Jesus Christ, that you bring them to your banqueting table. Your banner over them for all to see is love.

Lord Jesus, I pray for my city, San Francisco, lets give your Father a fathers' day present by presentation of your word in power. I ask for a medical miracle that cannot be gainsaid - that displays to all present the glory of our God and Father in a very dark place. Bring San Francisco a mighty visitation of God this weekend.

Lord Jesus, draw those still suffering addiction's grip to your holy presence for deliverance.

Father, glorify your name upon the earth.

Blogger collisioncat67 June 18, 2015 12:28 PM  

Polygamy;
So one man can have five wives and four men go without?
That seems like a sure fire plan for societal stability and peace.

Also, the appeal to polygamy, I'm convinced is that as the one "patriarch" he will always have a steady supply of 12 year old "wives" to screw will the older wives wait on him as if he is a king.

Blogger David-093 June 18, 2015 12:41 PM  

How the hell did this thread become about polygamy?

People...focus.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 12:45 PM  

@David

'" And Christ said we are expected to fight the good fight, but not necessarily have an expectation of winning."

He NEVER, and I mean NEVER, said we're to fight without expecting to win. On the contrary, He said that the "gates of Hell will not prevail against it", which is a guarantee of ultimate victory. '

Did the early Christian Martyrs lose when they spilled their blood in the arena? No, of course not. In the eyes of the world however, they were losers. This is my point. The battle is never pointless. The Gates of Hell reference is about the Church specially. This is a sticky and tricky subject given the countless denominations in existence today, all claiming to be the true church, despite all holding to different interpretations.
We are told in 1 Timothy 'Fight the good fight of faith: lay hold on eternal life, where unto thou art called'. Our true goal is heaven, not Earthly conquest.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 18, 2015 12:46 PM  

"43. Red Bane June 18, 2015 9:47 AM
@Mark Call

'Marriage, as defined by YHVH in His Word, is "LAWFUL", period. And He allows a man more than one wife; just read it'

Hmmmm...:

Mathew 19: 4-6 ' Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife[singular], and they two shall be in one flesh."



How did Moses get away with marrying a second wife.
Why did Miriam get leprosy for disapproving of the marriage.

Why did Onan die.

Why did Tamar have to trick Judah into marrying her. Why did Judah say she was more righteous than he was after she revealed herself.

Why are there laws pertaining to marrying your brother's wife if he was childless in order to continue the brother's name in the land. That's an incontrovertible order directly from the Lord to take a second wife.

Why was it ok for Boaz to marry Ruth.

How did King David get away with marrying Michel, Abigail and Bathsheba.

Why did the Lord refer to Israel and Judah separately in Ezekiel chapter 23. He called them sisters and gave them names, Oholah and Oholibah, then he gives them certificates of divorce, separately. Sounds like God was a polygamist.

Why are there seven churches before the throne of God in Revelation.
It's chapter 1, right at the beginning of the book. See verse 20. Seven stars and seven candlesticks as the seven churches.

If there is supposed to be ONE TRUE CHURCH, which is the model for one man-one woman marriage then why more than one church.

I can find more. These are only the ones I can think of right now.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 12:47 PM  

Storm the Forts of Darkness

Soldiers of our God, arise!
The day is drawing nearer;
Shake the slumber from your eyes,
The light is growing clearer.
Sit no longer idly by,
While the heedless millions die;
Lift the blood-stained banner high,
And take the field for Jesus.


Storm the forts of darkness, bring them down, bring them down!
Storm the forts of darkness, bring them down, bring them down!
Pull down the devil’s kingdom,
Where’er he holds dominion,
Storm the forts of darkness, bring them down.
Glory, honor to the Lamb,
Praise and power to the Lamb;
Glory, honor, praise and power,
Be forever to the Lamb.



See the brazen hosts of hell,
Their art and pow’r employing;
More than human tongue can tell,
The blood-bought souls destroying.
Hark! from ruin’s ghastly road,
Victims groan beneath their load,
Forward, O ye sons of God,
And dare or die for Jesus.

[Refrain]


Warriors of the risen King,
Great army of salvation,
Spread His fame, His praises sing,
And conquer every nation.
Raise the glorious standard higher,
Work for vict’ry, never tire;
Forward march with blood and fire,
And win the world for Jesus.

[Refrain]

Lord Jesus, your church is a lighthouse, a hospital, a school house, an army. Rescue, heal, instruct, and deploy men of good cheer. Our names are written in your Book of Life, awaken us for your glory. Amen

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum June 18, 2015 12:53 PM  

there are Orthodox ( older than the church in Rome )

No. Unless your Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself on St. Peter as stated in Matthew 16:18, you aren't older than the Catholic Church.


These are nice words from the SBC. But they are just words. Give them another generation or three, and they'll prostrate themselves before Caesar. As the Anglicans are doing today, the SBC will do tomorrow. It's just a matter of time.

The SBC was not founded by Jesus. If the do weather this coming storm of persecution, and come out the other end in one piece, great. But, unlike the Church founded by Jesus, they will be weaker after it, and not stronger. Without the Fullness of Truth Himself, you will Always be lacking.

The Catholic Church will always be the Only Church that will be left standing.

Blogger Beefy Levinson June 18, 2015 12:54 PM  

I'm Catholic and I'm sorry to say that my fellow Catholics support gay "marriage" about as much or slightly more than the general population. Doctrinally, the RCC stands strong against the impossibility of gay marriage, but at the parish level Catholics pretty much believe or disbelieve whatever they damn well please and the clergy keep their mouths shut lest they disrupt the revenue stream.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 12:55 PM  

Team Catholic:

Shut up

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 12:57 PM  

"Our true goal is heaven, not Earthly conquest.'

Remember what the Amalekites did to you. Do not forget.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 12:58 PM  

Credo in Unum Deum,

Are the SBC your allies or enemies?

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 18, 2015 1:05 PM  

The Southern Baptists, like most of what calls itself Christianity these days, only really worships negroes and Jews. The present resistance to gay marriage is merely what the late Auster called an "Unprincipled Exception" to the core ideology of Marxoid-SJW leftism (as demanded by the true objects of their worship). From High-fellatin' Franny the Pontifex Maximus of Pooftery to every grape-drank-guzzling televangelist, that which refers to itself as Christianity has become a very bad joke indeed. I've yet to see even a mainly white church condemn the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa, but the morons can't line up fast enough to make their way to Africa to go and bring us the gospel of Ebola. Even Musloids are more respectable.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 1:05 PM  

@ Athor Pel

You will have to consult a Jew about all those old testament passages. As a Christian, I understand that the Old law was fulfilled and many of the odd old timey practices abrogated. For example, Jesus poo pooed a lot of the dietary restrictions and St Peters dream put an end to circumcision. True Progress.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 1:08 PM  

Oh, and Jesus also condemned divorce, saying it had been allowed up to that point due to the ' hardness of the Jewish heart' . Things change

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 1:08 PM  

If there is supposed to be ONE TRUE CHURCH, which is the model for one man-one woman marriage then why more than one church.

Because there is not "one true church." There is only individual local churches, which are each supposed to be true, and each a picture of the Lord and His Bride.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 18, 2015 1:10 PM  

So one man can have five wives and four men go without?
That seems like a sure fire plan for societal stability and peace.


Yes, that is an excellent practical argument against polygyny, isn't it?

It's good to see people here admitting that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of manuals for good living and a healthy society.  Islam is far more Biblical than modern Christianity in that respect, and it produces a fair simulacrum of hell on earth (Islam is also blatantly based on abrogation, or naskh).  I am proudly non-Biblical in that respect.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 1:10 PM  

Brothers,

Focus. Count the cost to you, now, of following Jesus. Are you willing to be the target of an internet witch-hunt? Are you willing, for Jesus' sake, to be hauled into HR and discharged? Are you willing to be shunned by friends, insulted by foes, and exposed to ruin? Are you?









Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 1:10 PM  

Gen. Kong,

SBC = enemies for you, correct?

Anonymous ZhukovG June 18, 2015 1:11 PM  

@Quartermaster

I do not deny that there are serious doctrinal differences. I only argue that it might be prudent to wait until Traditional (Protestant, RCC, Orthodox) Christianity is once again the dominant social institution in society before having a (hopefully non-violent) go at one another.

It's a bit like if in WWII the allies decided that every effort must be focused on defeating Finland while ignoring Germany and Italy.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 1:13 PM  

I am proudly non-Biblical in that respect.

Unfortunately, secular humanism's history on this regard isn't so hot, either.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 1:14 PM  

As mentioned earlier. SBC bowed to Caesar in 1971 when they accepted abortion, with limits. Even a little bit of abortion ( which generally leads to a lot of abortion) is clearly s ungodly and represents a modern form of blood sacrifice to the Lord of this World.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 18, 2015 1:15 PM  

Not really the point, Bob. The point is that the government can use the tax exemption as a way to compel behavior and the supreme court will support them.

Note, however, that to find as the court did in Bob Jones v. US requires a constitutionally preposterous position, namely, that everything is taxable except what the government says is not taxable. If this is true, then, in a very real way, the government is giving its money to churches. That's simply unconstitutional. Conversely, if nothing is taxable except what the government says is taxable then it is not giving its money to churches, but it also could not use the tax power to disadvantage and control BJU.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 1:16 PM  

It's good to see people here admitting that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of manuals for good living and a healthy society.

I, for one, admit no such thing. You are merely observing David's men at Ziklag before they began the pursuit.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 1:20 PM  

It's good to see people here admitting that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of manuals for good living and a healthy society.

Oh, it is. The problem with your argument is that you're failing to understand genres. The fact that something is presented in narrative does not mean that something is prescribed by the text.

After all, only an idiot would argue that voyeurism, adultery, and murder are legitimised by the Bible because it presents David's having done these in narrative. Only a blithering moron would suggest that father-daughter incest is taught by the Bible because the narrative presents us the story of Lot and his two daughters.

Yet, this is the type of argument you're using.

Which is why your argument is rightly rejected prima facie.

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 1:21 PM  

501(c)3 status is truly the very least of our problems.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 1:23 PM  

501(c)3 status is truly the very least of our problems.

True. A lot of people go on and on and on about it, but it really means nothing. The gubmint will persecute if it choses to persecute, with or without some "tax exempt" status. Being a house church doesn't mean you might not have gubmint stormtroopers busting your doors in for opposing gay marriage one day.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 1:24 PM  

501(c)3 status is truly the very least of our problems.

laughed, I did.

Gee, Wally, has anyone ever heard of the underground church?

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 1:24 PM  

As mentioned earlier. SBC bowed to Caesar in 1971 when they accepted abortion, with limits. Even a little bit of abortion ( which generally leads to a lot of abortion) is clearly s ungodly and represents a modern form of blood sacrifice to the Lord of this World.

Over the past twenty years they've repeatedly renounced that.

Blogger Red Bane June 18, 2015 1:30 PM  

@ Josh

'Over the past twenty years they've repeatedly renounced that.'

They officially overturned the resolution? Can you link? Genuine interest.

Blogger automatthew June 18, 2015 1:30 PM  

This is not the place for restarting the Protestant/Catholic comment wars.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 1:34 PM  

Of course their 501(c) status means something, it will be the easiest, and initially the primary method the government uses in order to compel the church to obey. Saying it means nothing is akin to saying "Yes, he has a gun, but it means nothing. He's going to persecute me whether he has a gun or not." While that may be true, it's pretty stupid and shortsighted to make it easier for him. Of course that goes back to my original point, the various churches jumped that shark a long time ago, and that genie will never go back in the bottle for many reasons, not the least of which is that the overwhelming majority of people still don't want it to, they just want to control it themselves.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) June 18, 2015 1:34 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 1:34 PM  

They officially overturned the resolution? Can you link? Genuine interest.

here you go

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 1:36 PM  

What is marriage? Whoever said it was a fundamental liberty, please tell us what marriage is.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) June 18, 2015 1:36 PM  

The right to marry is a fundamental liberty (see Loving v. Virginia). Essential to that liberty is the right to marry the person of your choosing (assuming that person also chooses you, and is of age and able to consent).
Our new mayor in Anchorage is on the record defending a father marrying his son.
It's as bad as you can imagine and it's only going to get worse.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 1:38 PM  

Eh, the SBC "renouncing" their initial support is worth even less than the Republicans that claim to want to have RvW overturned. I'm sure many actually genuinely feel that way, but most like the status quo simply because it gives them one more talking point. If the people that claim to be against abortion actually were, it wouldn't legally exist.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) June 18, 2015 1:38 PM  

http://www.adn.com/article/20150502/bernadette-wilson-berkowitz-did-say-father-and-son-could-marry

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 18, 2015 1:39 PM  

The context of the first marriage, Adam and Eve, one man - one woman, has to do with establishing a single human lineage. Where the sin of Adam, Eve was deceived, the federal head of humanity, was therefore passed down.

The Old Testament does not condemn polygamy. Like divorce, it is tolerated. In the New Testament, the only explicit restriction against polygamy is as a condition to be a pastor/elder/overseer.

The restriction is of obvious benefit. More than one wife, too many distractions from serving the Church.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 1:39 PM  

Red Bane Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions on Abortion

See Resolution #8: On Thirty Years of Roe V. Wade - They specifically repudiated the 1971 and 1974 resolutions. Remember that in the late 70s and early 80s the SBC kicked out the progressives, something the progressives will never forgive them for. They actually repudiated it 11 years later in 1982, but made the specific reference in 2003.

Blogger tim June 18, 2015 1:41 PM  

1st OPC on Lawton?

Anonymous MTM June 18, 2015 1:41 PM  

Time to get out of the wedding industry...

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 1:42 PM  

Rip,

So the SBC leadership is full of liars and con men who use the political issue of abortion to fill the pews and for political ends, but actually like it and their daughters and wives secretly have abortions?

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 1:43 PM  

Eh, the SBC "renouncing" their initial support is worth even less than the Republicans that claim to want to have RvW overturned. I'm sure many actually genuinely feel that way, but most like the status quo simply because it gives them one more talking point. If the people that claim to be against abortion actually were, it wouldn't legally exist.

Nice moving of the goal posts.

Anonymous anonymous coward June 18, 2015 1:44 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 18, 2015 1:45 PM  

I will never have more than one wife, just not interested. I am not willing to put people in jail over polygamy or the gay whatever.

The problem is that when governmental segregation became governmental desegregation, the government acquired/usurped the power to force the "non-discrimination" against a class of people by the private individuals. It may now be in the public accommodation arena, but not for long. To force the government's definition of marriage on churches or other non-governmental "organizations" is what's next.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:01 PM  

Jart - please refrain from pulling words out of your ass before attempting to place them in my mouth. Also, reading is fundamental, you should try it.

Josh - I never placed any goal posts in the first place, which would be required in order for them to be moved. I simply commented on the reality. Yes, they have repudiated it. Did a lot of actual good, dinnit?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 2:07 PM  

@ Beau:
I did not realize you were in SF. Do you work with City Impact, perchance? My church is doing a short term missions with them in the Tenderloin district soon.

Thank you for sharing your prayers in these threads.

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 2:07 PM  

"If the people that claim to be against abortion actually were, it wouldn't legally exist."

Do elaborate. I am actually against it, and yet . . .

Blogger Vile Faceless Moderator June 18, 2015 2:10 PM  

anonymous coward, et al. Drop the catholic/protestant argument. For serious.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 2:10 PM  

Rip,

How about you answer the question? Here's from your ass: " but most like the status quo simply because it gives them one more talking point." So are the SBC leadership made up of con men? Yes, or no?

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:12 PM  

Rabbi - In the hopes that you are sincerely asking for an elaboration, I was typing fast and should have said "if EVEN MOST OF the people.....". I already acknowledged in that post that many are actually genuinely against abortion, but obviously not most, or it wouldn't be legal.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 2:12 PM  

Do you work with City Impact, perchance?

No, but they are coming to visit our place in a few weeks to see how we can share resources. We have met on the street doing similar ministry.

When you come to town, look me up.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 2:14 PM  

You Christians (of whatever flavor) miss the point about polygyny. There is no way to get around the fact that Psalm 19 states "The Law of the Lord is perfect" and that means it is perfect. Nothing more or less than needed. As has been pointed out, God does not regulate sin, He prohibits it and condemns it.

The problem with virtually every argument about polygyny is God regulated it and even took credit for giving David all his wives. Nothing in the New Testament changed that. Therefore, for the church to say that polygyny is wrong is to say that God got it wrong, that His law wasn't perfect and thus God is a liar. That, people, is blasphemy.

I does not matter what "tradition" says because when tradition directly contradicts God's Word it's wrong and no amount of ecumenical councils, papal bulls, patriarch's decrees or pastors tricks can change that. I have heard all the arguments in this area and the vast majority of them (including all of them in this thread) are straw men. Either God's Law is perfect or it isn't. God's Word says it is. If you claim that something God permitted is wrong for everyone then you're calling God a liar and that's blasphemy.

Polygyny makes people very uncomfortable and that bangs up against the subject of this thread squarely on point. Everybody wants to claim that girl on girl sex is homosexuality. Wrong. Take a close look at Leviticus 18 and notice that men with men was prohibited. Likewise, men with animals was prohibited and women with animals was prohibited. Yet, there is a deafening silence on the subject of girl on girl action. But the church and everybody else lumps the girl/girl sexual activity in with the man/man sexual activity because the church decided that they'd play god and tell God that He got it wrong.

Carefully looking at Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 we see that girl on girl sexual acts are not prohibited, condemned or punished. Looking at Romans 1 we see that women who "gave up the natural function for the unnatural" is described as a depraved passion. So- what is the natural function of women? The natural function of a woman is to be married to a man and make his babies, to be her husband's helpmeet.

C'mon guys, fess up. If you had more than one wife I'm thinking I'm correct when I say that sooner or later you'll want all of them in bed with you at once. Put a pile of naked, sweaty, sexually aroused people in bed together and things happen. Maybe that's why God didn't prohibit or condemn girl on girl action, because it could be legitimately exercised/satisfied in a polygynous marriage. This drives most Christians nuts and scares the living bejeezus out of Christian women.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 2:14 PM  

When you come to town, look me up.

Not part of that missions team, but maybe next time. Would love to.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:15 PM  

Jart - when did you stop beating your wife?

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:18 PM  

Jart - from your ass, actually:

"So the SBC leadership is full of liars and con men who use the political issue of abortion to fill the pews and for political ends, but actually like it and their daughters and wives secretly have abortions?".

Now, if you can find where I said this, knock yourself out. And no, I won't answer an obvious loaded question.

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 2:18 PM  

"I already acknowledged in that post that many are actually genuinely against abortion, but obviously not most, or it wouldn't be legal.'

I am rarely, if ever at all, insincere. I am simply trying to understand the logic of your statement.

' . . . but obviously not most, or it wouldn't be legal.'"

My question still stands.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 2:21 PM  

Rip - You didn't answer a yes or no question and I refer you to the rules of the blog. Answer mine and I'll answer yours. Now, Yes or No: Is the SBC leadership is full of liars and con men?


Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 2:21 PM  

@Toad:
C'mon guys, fess up. If you had more than one wife I'm thinking I'm correct when I say that sooner or later you'll want all of them in bed with you at once.

I have no such thing to confess. I have not even the desire.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord."

Polygamy was a licit thing in times pass, and may be in the future; but there are better and nobler things for the Christian to set his mind upon.

Blogger Rabbi B June 18, 2015 2:23 PM  

"You didn't answer a yes or no question . . "

Oh, but these are the most difficult kind . . . don't ya know.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:24 PM  

Rabbi - I'm sorry, but I thought it was pretty obvious. The reality is that most people that profess to be against abortion simply are not. In the case of politicians and other people in power, most would rather have it as an issue to garner further support from those that are against it but aren't in positions of power. In the case of most everyone else, once you get into details most aren't actually against abortion, they are just against it in certain cases. I'd even go so far as to say they are against it in most cases, but most people are in favor of it in at least some situations.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 2:25 PM  

Josh - I never placed any goal posts in the first place, which would be required in order for them to be moved. I simply commented on the reality. Yes, they have repudiated it. Did a lot of actual good, dinnit?

Actually, it did. It's much more difficult to get an abortion now than it was after Roe.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 2:30 PM  

I don't support polygamy at all. One man, one wife, but the threat of polygamy to married Christian women is interesting to observe. What are they afraid of? That they'll actually have to put out for their husband on a regular basis? The horror! Oh the humanity.

Blogger darkdoc June 18, 2015 2:32 PM  

I already acknowledged in that post that many are actually genuinely against abortion, but obviously not most, or it wouldn't be legal.

I don't have numbers to actually challenge your claim, but I would like to suggest a much more likely (though much more cynical) possibility.

Roe v Wade has, through the years been a massive fund raising issue for not only the political parties (both sides) but also numerous other groups. Th political parties rarely kill sacred fund-raising cows - abortion, taxes, guns, and now, Obamacare. When there is an issue that can instantly raise both money and loyalty/emotions for both parties, it is not likely to go away for a long time. Nothing is ever solved, and money is always generated.

Solve an issue, say good-bye to instant repeatable cash. I told my wife that when Obamacare passed, it was going to turn into one of these issues.

Now you have Repubs talking about saving it if the SCOTUS blows it up. Gotta save the fund-raiser.

Always follow the money, politics is almost never about the moral, but always the money. How many times recently have you seen the politicos care what the voters say in any important issue? They always do what is best for themselves.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 2:32 PM  

SirHamster

Given that (in the church) some 70% of divorces are filed by wives, and women and men are baptized into the church at a rate of about 3:1, and further, that when a divorce occurs within the church that the women typically stay while the men leave, What does that leave us with? A burgeoning population of single mothers, divorced mothers and widowed mothers (thanks neocons!).

Twenty years ago I'd have told a man that if wanted to get laid the easiest way was to join a theatre group. Today I'd tell him to join a medium-sized conservative church and enjoy working his way through the wives and divorcees. The churches are filled with women who have no husband but these women still have a libido, so their scratch their itch in serial dating relationships. The "church carousel" if you will.

This is analogous to the period of the Biblical patriarchs, when the land was overrun with temple whores, used up sluts from the temple of Baal. Today we have the same situation except they're used up sluts from the temple of higher learning and divorce court whores.

Want to tell me why polygyny isn't a specific solution to this huge problem within the church? And don't give me that "Polygamy (sic) was a licit thing in times pass (sic), and may be in the future; but there are better and nobler things for the Christian to set his mind upon."

The elders of the church are there to administer and solve the problems of the church. The problem is staring you in the face and you ignore a Biblical solution simply because it might look like it's too much fun? C'mon.

Anonymous Beau June 18, 2015 2:34 PM  

@ artisanaltoadshall

You're wrong, nakedly twisting scriptures to your own destruction. Romans 1:26 explicitly condemns girl on girl action,

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

Your destruction as a false teacher in bondage to lust - forewarned by Saint Peter - is not sleeping. Party on now; it's the only thing you've got, foolishly exchanging the gift of God for a lie.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:36 PM  

Josh - not sure where you are from, but even here in the deep south it's not particularly difficult to get an abortion now. It's slightly more inconvenient, but that's about it, and I'd love to see how the SBC's reversal is responsible for even that.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 2:38 PM  

I knew I was going to have to break this down for you so here it goes.

Eh, the SBC "renouncing" their initial support is worth even less than the Republicans that claim to want to have RvW overturned.

Renoucing is in scare quotes so the imposition here is that the SBC are disingenuous in their claim to want RvW overturned, furthermore their support "is worth even less" than the Republicans claim. Two propositions here: SBC renouncement was not really a renouncement, and it is worse than what the Republicans do in claiming they want it overturned. The take away here is that the SBC leadership (they are the ones who drafted the resolutions) are worse than Republicans. That's a serious claim and insult.

I'm sure many actually genuinely feel that way, but most like the status quo simply because it gives them one more talking point.

Many are sincere in this claim but "most" (your words), as in "adjective, in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number" like the status quo because why? "it gives them one more talking point".

If the leadership of an organization say they want A, but actually prefer B at the very least they are liars, if they use A to actually get B then they are con men. "a person who swindles others by means of a confidence game".

You are clearly claiming the SBC leadership is disingenuous, worse than Republicans, and use abortion to as talking point for personal gain.

This is why I asked you the question you still refuse to answer.

So once again, Is the SBC leadership is full of liars and con men?

Anonymous BGS June 18, 2015 2:41 PM  

So, will the government "force" churches to marry gays?

When I first heard of gay shotgun weddings I was confused until I found out the shotguns are pointed at the cake bakers & caterers.

The only real solution is simple, do away with any and all state recognized marriages

Why has no one on the right tried to poison pill gay marriage? If a couple of conservative leaders decided to talk about if gay marriage comes to pass that civil partner benefits would have to be removed, you would force a lot of gays to take a hard look at it. Right now companies that give partner benefits basically give away free money with no downside. If gay marriage was legal there would be more with partner benefits than married. Many gays don't have enough Str8 friends to know how costly a divorce and alimony can be.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 2:42 PM  

darkdoc - that was precisely my point, actually, I'm just separating those in political power from the rest of us peons

Also, even among the peons, there is a sizable number that claim to be "pro-life", but then go on to list the exceptions such as rape, incest, etc. Then, if you really want to get to an actual solution you have to have a legal definition of when life begins. I know, the easy answer is "at conception", but most people don't even know or agree on what THAT means, either.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 2:44 PM  

Why should an infant die for the crime his father committed?

Blogger Kentucky Packrat June 18, 2015 2:46 PM  

How did Moses get away with marrying a second wife.

Fait Accompli. Moses' first wife presumably had been taken away as part of turning him into a non-person after he runs, and he's in the wilderness 40 years. He's married before the Law is given.

Why did Miriam get leprosy for disapproving of the marriage.

She was challenging God's authority, using the marriage as an excuse.

Why did Onan die.

He disobeyed God by disobeying the tradition (made into a law later) that the brother will have a son.

Why did Tamar have to trick Judah into marrying her. Why did Judah say she was more righteous than he was after she revealed herself.

Because Judah is a sinning jerk. The Bible is full of sinners who do bad things. Sometimes God works the results out for the good, sometimes He just lets them pay for it.

(It's interesting that people want it both ways. When the Bible shows real people making real mistakes, it's a sign of the Bible's weaknesses. When the Bible shows virtue, it's a sign that the Bible is a myth.)

Why are there laws pertaining to marrying your brother's wife if he was childless in order to continue the brother's name in the land. That's an incontrovertible order directly from the Lord to take a second wife.

Second marriages where a one-time concession to the reality on the ground. There were a lot more Hebrew women than men, because of the massacre of the male children. Also, the kind of life the nomadic Israelis lived left them with more women than men. At the time, second wives were a concession to reality.

Also, God had an exception that he wanted every male child in the line of Israel in perpetuity. Every single man who entered Israel after the Wilderness was special to him, and as much as is possible, He wanted that person to have descendants preserved until Jesus was in His Kingdom. This was a one-time rule for Israel, in one case only. (If the line didn't have to be preserved, then a man was expressly forbidden from marrying his sister-in-law, as John pointed out to his cost.)

The Church made the need for a woman to be supported by a husband obsolete (she would work, and then the Church would help meet needs after that), and the command to repopulate children doesn't hold with the Law fulfilled. Therefore, the ideal returns: one man, one woman, no divorce.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 2:47 PM  

Josh - not sure where you are from, but even here in the deep south it's not particularly difficult to get an abortion now. It's slightly more inconvenient, but that's about it, and I'd love to see how the SBC's reversal is responsible for even that.

Roe overturned every single state law on abortion, legalizing abortion on demand.

It's been a very long march through the legislative and judicial processes to restrict abortion.

However, there's significant progress that's been made.



http://www.bustle.com/articles/76235-all-the-2015-anti-abortion-legislation-thats-been-passed-so-far-get-a-grip-arkansas

In the first quarter of 2015, legislatures in all 50 states collectively introduced 332 provisions aimed at restricting abortion services, compared to 335 during the entire 2014 legislative session, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Needless to say, politicians have intensified their attacks on women’s right to choose and it’s going to be a gruesome year if this trend continues.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that of the 332 provisions introduced on the state level by April 1. 53 have been approved by a legislative chamber and nine have already been enacted. We can add two more restrictions enacted in April to that number, totaling 11, so far this year.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat June 18, 2015 2:50 PM  

And by the way, Tamar does not marry Judah, she plays the prostitute. There is no claim of her being a wife, just that the child is child of Judah.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 2:53 PM  

The elders of the church are there to administer and solve the problems of the church. The problem is staring you in the face and you ignore a Biblical solution simply because it might look like it's too much fun? C'mon.

I rejected your claim that I (and other men) can confess a secret desire to have multiple wives and to have sex with them all at the same time.

I do not, and I cited the Biblical reasons why I do not set my mind on such things.

As for whether polygamy is The Solution for the Age - it matters little to me. I'm only objecting to your failed mind-reading.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 2:54 PM  

What's really fascinating to me in the whole abortion debate is a simple fact. We are trying to get women from murdering their own children in the womb ! Millions of women walking around this country are guilty of murdering their own children!

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 18, 2015 2:56 PM  

Gen. Kong,

SBC = enemies for you, correct?


They take government money (along with other "Christians") to re-settle Musloids and similar incompatibles throughout the USA. They'll cave on the gay marriage issue when nobody's paying attention, just like the "conservatives" at National Review. So, in a word: Yes, they're enemies. It does not mean every individual who chooses to attend such a church is necessarily an enemy, but the leadership and government of the organization are controlled by enemies. The same is true of all major churches in the West, from Hi-Fellatin' Franny to the local Rev. Clown-fart. Organized Christianity is basically a dead religion, at least in the west. Enemy-controlled and devoted to our genocide. I wish them the very best Islam has to offer.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 2:58 PM  

What's really fascinating to me in the whole abortion debate is a simple fact. We are trying to get women from murdering their own children in the womb ! Millions of women walking around this country are guilty of murdering their own children!

Makes me realize how easy it was for Israel to adopt the child sacrifice the OT prophets condemned - and how we're just as sinful as they are, for all of our Progress.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 2:59 PM  

Josh, you are correct. In Texas they estimate only 8-10 clinics will manage to stay open in the entire state after the most recent legislation.

This is why we have to fight, and not give up. The toll from abortion has been nothing short of horrific, but that doesn't mean you give up hope and the fight.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 3:00 PM  

Gen. Kong,

Thank you for the answer.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 3:03 PM  

Jart - You don't have to break anything down, but given your inability to understand what I wrote, I apparently have to.

"Renoucing is in scare quotes so the imposition here is that the SBC are disingenuous in their claim to want RvW overturned, furthermore their support "is worth even less" than the Republicans claim. Two propositions here: SBC renouncement was not really a renouncement, and it is worse than what the Republicans do in claiming they want it overturned. The take away here is that the SBC leadership (they are the ones who drafted the resolutions) are worse than Republicans. That's a serious claim and insult."

I never said "worSE", I said "worTH less", and this is an objective fact. Whether or not they meant their repudiation (it's in scare quotes because it was completely irrelevant from any meaningful standpoint once their original damage had been done), it is quite literally worth far less than the words of the politicians that actually have the ability to enact law. This would be why I said "don't pull words out of your ass" and reading is fundamental". Seriously, try it sometime.

I'm glad you understand the term "most" now. I see you looked it up after your initial post. So, do you still have a question or did that one word (which was in my original post) clarify it sufficiently?

Oh, and yes. The leadership of most organizations with political clout are rife with power hungry liars and opportunists. That is not to say that all of people in positions of leadership are, but I wouldn't hesitate to say more are than not. I would have had no problem answering that particular question, had you actually asked it initially rather than making shit up that I never claimed at all.



Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:08 PM  

They'll cave on the gay marriage issue when nobody's paying attention, just like the "conservatives" at National Review.

Care to make a prediction? Will they cave next year, in five years, in ten years?

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:09 PM  

Organized Christianity is basically a dead religion, at least in the west. Enemy-controlled and devoted to our genocide.

Who is "our?"

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 3:11 PM  

@Beau (158)

You're wrong, nakedly twisting scriptures to your own destruction. Romans 1:26 explicitly condemns girl on girl action

You have not studied to show yourself approved. Carefully check Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. Men with men is prohibited and condemned. Men with animals is prohibited and condemned. Women with animals is prohibited and condemned. Nothing is said about women with women as a physical act.

Romans 1:26 and 27 should be compared and contrasted in light of the Law. In this passage the context is a rejection of God and a refusal to recognize His authority. In this case women with women are giving up the natural for the unnatural. It is you who is twisting Scripture. You are trying to make this a discussion of how the plumbing is connected rather than the relationship of the people connecting the plumbing. In Romans 1:26, where is the condemnation? Where is the penalty? Contrast that with Romans 1:27, in which the men are also exchanging the natural for the unnatural. And look at that. Burning with lust (the men) commit vile acts for which they receive the penalty in their own bodies.

What is the natural function of a woman? Eve was created to be a helpmeet for her husband. That is the natural function of women. What is the natural function of men? To be a husband and father.

If a man and a woman have sex, is that licit? The answer is it depends on their relationship. If they're married to each other, it's cool. If they aren't it's either fornication or adultery. Same answer if women have sex with women. If they're married to the same man and he wants them both in his bed, no problem. If they've decided to reject men and live for their own pleasure, it's either fornication or adultery. The same cannot be said about men with men because it is always forbidden and condemned as homosexuality. There is no possibility of homosexuality ever being a licit relationship.

Stg58
What are they afraid of?

It is written:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

Husband says: "Hey girls! Put the kids down by 9:00, I'll be out till 10:15. When I get home I want to find all of you clean and in my bed, naked. Bring the baby oil cause we're gonna play a game of naked twister when we're done."

Every wife is thinking "submit to your husbands in everything. OMG! What if he wants me to... wants her to...

They're scared because A) it's licit; and B) they know they'd enjoy it. That, and they've got friends and relatives who are like Beau. Judgmental and condemning.

Blogger CM June 18, 2015 3:12 PM  

That they'll actually have to put out for their husband on a regular basis? The horror! Oh the humanity.

While i never questioned whether polygyny was biblical, i did understand it was never presented in a favorable light.

What women have to fear is what men have to fear... lack of peace doubled, tripled, quadrupled.

Haven't you heard by now that women compete with eachother? Over everything. Leah and Rachel competed over offspring... neither was happy... and while Jacob won on the sex front, he lost epically on the peaceful household front.

I do not wish to compete with a woman in my household... over anything... clothes, fitness, hair, sex, fertility... women ruin everything... especially peace.

My 3yo daughter and i cause enough drama in our household.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:14 PM  

You have not studied to show yourself approved.

We're gonna need more popcorn...

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 3:16 PM  

Josh - Yes, I hear all of the screaming from the left about "attacks on wimmen's rights" with respect to state laws regulating abortion. I also know that it still isn't particularly difficult to get one even in those states, it's just slightly more inconvenient, and that still doesn't have anything to do with whether the SBCs repudiation of its previous position makes a damned bit of difference.

Seriously, last year there was a state law proposed here that would require all physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital with either 30 or 50 miles (can't remember which, offhand) and the hysteria from the pro-choice crown was very similar to that implied in the article you linked. Of course they couldn't show that it would actually reduce access to having an abortion or reduce the number of abortions performed, so it was much ado about nothing. From both sides.

Blogger CM June 18, 2015 3:20 PM  

If they're married to the same man and he wants them both in his bed, no problem.

It perverts and debases the marital bed.

The women are not married to eachother. They are married to their husband.

It is husband united with wife.

There may be nothing explicitly condemning this in scripture, but i read that romans passage as we are dividing ourselves from God and the divide is getting wider and wider... in keeping with the rest of Romans if you read this as a prelude.

The heart is deceitfully wicked... yours is no exception.

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 18, 2015 3:21 PM  

Care to make a prediction? Will they cave next year, in five years, in ten years?

Ten years or less. They already drink from the Banana Empire's teat. Eventually their real masters will demand obedience - and they'll comply, like all good respectable "conservatives".

Who is "our?"

I thought you would have been clever enough to pick up the meaning from my previous reference to South Africa. "Our" means whites, as in Caucasians. BTW, have the SBCs ever once condemned the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa, or does they tacitly endorse it as most "Christians" do.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:22 PM  

I thought you would have been clever enough to pick up the meaning from my previous reference to South Africa.

I had my suspicions, just wanted to confirm them.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother #225 June 18, 2015 3:23 PM  

CM,

As I said the first time, I'm not in favor of polygamy at all. Just interested in the nature of the opposition and reaction from women. Your reaction was exactly as I suspected.

Blogger Feather Blade June 18, 2015 3:24 PM  

No church, synagogue, or whatever has ever had to marry two people it didn't want to marry -- and they will never be forced too. Even thinking of the possibility is absurd.

"Not even God Himself could sink this ship!"

On the other hand, if getting married is a constitutional right, then anyone who interferes with the execution of that right by...say... rejecting a marriage proposal... is violating the constitutional rights of the one who proposed marriage.

I don't think that the gay mirage advocates realize that they are proposing a system of chattel slavery for anyone who doesn't want to marry the person who offers marriage to them.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 3:25 PM  

Josh

We're gonna need more popcorn...

I LOL'd. Glad to be of service.

Anonymous Mark Call June 18, 2015 3:26 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger CM June 18, 2015 3:27 PM  

@KP -

On Judah and preserving the line, I have often wondered if this scene in Genesis is not in chronological order.

I really want to know if this takes place AFTER Jacob blessing his children.

Judah's line HAD to survive. It was prophecied that out of Judah, the king would come... so you have Onan's death and Tamar's righteousness in preserving Judah's lineage.

Just curious :p

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:28 PM  

BTW, have the SBCs ever once condemned the ongoing genocide of whites in South Africa, or does they tacitly endorse it as most "Christians" do.

They passed a 1999 resolution condemning all genocide and ethnic cleansing.

They've never specifically condemned a genocide in South Africa.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall June 18, 2015 3:38 PM  

CM

It perverts and debases the marital bed.

The women are not married to eachother. They are married to their husband.


Again, you are saying that God got it wrong. The natural function of women is to be married and make babies, for it is written "Women shall be saved through childbirth..."

If you don't like it the best you can say is "This is not for me" ("That which is not of faith is sin") but if God didn't say it was wrong then you are saying God got it wrong when you claim this is wrong (for everyone) because that means God's Law isn't perfect. God said His Law is perfect, ergo, you're calling God a liar. That's blasphemy.

Let's take this a bit more in-depth (heh). What are the two restrictions on the marital bed? Is anal prohibited? How about blowjobs (what some refer to as "oral sodomy")? What about your wife using a strap-on and pegging you? What does the Bible specifically say about those sorts of things? Yes, I'm asking questions I know will be perceived as gross and offensive but I'm doing so for a reason and your iron can't get sharpened if you can't take a few hits.

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 3:46 PM  

I never said "worSE", I said "worTH less", and this is an objective fact. Whether or not they meant their repudiation (it's in scare quotes because it was completely irrelevant from any meaningful standpoint once their original damage had been done), it is quite literally worth far less than the words of the politicians that actually have the ability to enact law. This would be why I said "don't pull words out of your ass" and reading is fundamental". Seriously, try it sometime.

Nonsense. The SBC leadership is worse because they have offered something in your option which is "worth less" than what the Republicans offer, and then following your belief that it's "completely irrelevant" act like it's relevant.

Oh, and yes.

Thank you.

Anonymous Gen. Kong June 18, 2015 3:48 PM  

Josh:
They passed a 1999 resolution condemning all genocide and ethnic cleansing.

They've never specifically condemned a genocide in South Africa.


Imagine my shock and awe, a nice pro-forma statement. And so atop the garbage-heap of history, to paraphrase Lev Bornstein (no doubt one of the shiny new gods in the SBC-SJW pantheon with St. Martin the Adulterer, the Chicago Jeezus, etc.). Perhaps in a decade or so the Pink Palmetto Princess, the great "con-servative" from SC will marry his by in a SBC church. Should be hilarious. I look forward to it.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 18, 2015 3:48 PM  

Care to make a prediction? Will they cave next year, in five years, in ten years?

July 15, 2015. At 12:17 PM.

Blogger Mark Citadel June 18, 2015 3:48 PM  

I was just reading how the pathetic heretical Church of England has said that there is no place in British schools for 'homophobia'. What a disgusting display! And this attitude is reflected in some idiotic troll comments here from Leftists such as GermanyGuy.

Vox, there has been an exciting development in Eastern Ukraine with the revival of the old Tsarist organization, the 'Black Hundreds' which was a radical Orthodox paramilitary force before the revolution. I have said for a long time now, if you want to actually influence policy and affect political change in this world, you have to look overseas to successful groups. Essentially, we need a Christian version of Hezbollah, which is massively influential in Lebanon as a legitimate organization, but is not actually part of the Lebanese army. It's actually BIGGER than the Lebanese army. The way they control Lebanon, this is how Christians should control weakened states in the West. The revival of the 'Black Hundreds' is perhaps a step in this direction for Eastern Europe. People thinking about giving up now are idiots. We are on the verge of a new era.

When your enemy is at his most insane, his burn out is not far off.

Anonymous Rip June 18, 2015 3:51 PM  

"Nonsense. The SBC leadership is worse because they have offered something in your option which is "worth less" than what the Republicans offer, and then following your belief that it's "completely irrelevant" act like it's relevant. "

If you think they are worse, that is certainly your prerogative.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:52 PM  

July 15, 2015. At 12:17 PM.

'splain?

Blogger JartStar June 18, 2015 3:52 PM  

If you think they are worse, that is certainly your prerogative.

I don't, do you?

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 3:57 PM  

Imagine my shock and awe, a nice pro-forma statement. And so atop the garbage-heap of history

They condemn all genocide. That would include any South Africa genocide against whites.

You understand the concept of sets and subsets, don't you?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 18, 2015 3:57 PM  

@ CM
On Judah and preserving the line, I have often wondered if this scene in Genesis is not in chronological order.

I really want to know if this takes place AFTER Jacob blessing his children.

Judah's line HAD to survive. It was prophecied that out of Judah, the king would come... so you have Onan's death and Tamar's righteousness in preserving Judah's lineage.


Judah had a youngest son who could preserve his lineage. The issue was that the widow of his elder son did not have a son to preserve her family and provide for her in her old age.

Blogger Josh June 18, 2015 4:01 PM  

Of course they couldn't show that it would actually reduce access to having an abortion or reduce the number of abortions performed, so it was much ado about nothing. From both sides.

Abortion rates are at their lowest point since Roe. There's been a long term decline since 1990, and that decline has accelerated since 2000.

That's progress.

Blogger CM June 18, 2015 4:06 PM  

I fail to see how girl on girl gets anyone knocked up?

And I do think that Paul is saying these things divide us from God... what dives us from God? Sin. So... girl on girl is sin.

And sin is condemned in scripture.

As to the other things, i guess it matters what translation you use but, buggery/anal penetration is sodomy and appears to be condemned in scripture... so yes, I think its wrong.

Oral? It seems to be a huge part of lovers delighting in themselves in Song of Songs... granted its poetic imagery and subject to interpretation... so here I'll go with Paul's words on consience in Corinthians.

Strap ons? All this just seems so perverted. And I find something wrong if a man seeks* pleasure in having a rubber cattle prod shoved up his rear by his wife/lover/whatever.

I really don't think scripture needs to explicitly state "this is sin" for us to have some inkling that there's something wrong here... and that is the heart of Romans 1... that God has revealed himself in all things, but we have rejected him, perverted him, and so we have been given over to shameful "lusts" (Jesus calls THAT a sin...)

* Seeks instead of finds because sin is often pleasurable which is why its tempting. Whether i'd enjoy girl on girl is beside the point of its wrong- or rightness.

1 – 200 of 971 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts