NOT A GAY DAY!

Today sees Northern Irish society sink to a new low, as "civil partnerships", the precursor to official gay marriage,  becomes law. 

Naturally the militant gay lobby is delighted with the news and it is deemed politically impolite to speak out against this corruption of the institution of marriage by the liberally driven  political class. Unsurprisingly the Churches are pretty mute on the subject, though at least the Roman Catholic Church exercises some moral clarity on the subject. The lack of comment by the main Protestant Churches is evidence of their own descent into the moral mire.

It's just one pink jamboree and presented as an alleged sign of our "maturity and tolerance", or so goes the official line. Well, I beg to differ and see it as one more indicator of our society slouching towards Gomorrah. But if we look North, to the western Isles of Scotland, we see a spirited effort to ban civil partnerships, with local Councillors voting AGAINST them. However, in another sign of the rabid intolerance that underlies so-called liberalism, the Registrar General of Scotland will FLY IN outside registrars to the Western Isles - a move which would have the Executive's full support. So the wishes of the people of the Western Isles are to be ignored lest militant gays and their cheer-leaders in high places be offended!

Let me make my position clear on this. I have no issues with gay people on a individual basis, though I condemn the sin as the Bible requires. What people do in private is their business, not mine. However, and there is always a however in these things, I believe that conferring the same economic and legal advantages on homosexuals as those hithertoo enjoyed by married heterosexuals WILL seriously undermine the institution of marriage, and I would recommend anyone who doubts this to familiarise themselves with the work of Stanley Kurtz.

I also believe that civil partnerships will morph into fully fledged gay marriage. That is part of the not-so-outspoken gay agenda and those who think that this concession to militant homosexuals will be the end of the story fool themselves.

Today is a day of shame for Northern Ireland.

Comments

[Colin Maxwell]

HG

Both of us know that I could send you off to a whole load of Christian websites with a whole load of apologetic arguments.

Both of us also know that if you don't want proof, then a million such websites and a million such apologetic arguments will not supply it to you.

I could ask you what you mean by "proof" but if you supply the answer "I would want God Himself to come down and tell me face to face and throw in a few miracles etc., by way of signature " (or words to that effect) don't fool yourself that you would say: "OK...I have proof."

A key verse to remember here - and your rejecting it (if you do) does not negate its force one iota is found in Luke 16:31

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets [i.e. the Bible], neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you love darkness rather than light (John 3:19-21) then you will hate the light and will reject it.

God sits in judgement over you. You don't sit in judgement over God.

[Henry94]

Buckfast

The questions are old and so are the answers

Q. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

A. No. You need a Israelite priest to offer the sacrifice for you in the Temple in Jerusalem; you can't just do it yourself in your back garden. You have a problem! The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But stop believing in the pleasing odour of animal sacrifices anyway, for it is written that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4). You need to believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross takes away all your sin, now and forever. As to offering violence against your neighbours, that will have you hauled up in front of the magistrates for a breach of the peace and actual bodily harm at a minimum under any system of law, ancient or modern.

Q. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). How do I tell? I have tried asking but most women take offence.

A. This is to do with purity of worship in the Temple . Not just sexual intercourse (we would all be agreed on that) but even touching a menstruating woman made the one who touched her unclean. It has passed. When the Temple in Jerusalem was sacked in 70 AD, as Jesus prophesied, it was already 40 years past its use-by date. The sacrifice of Jesus in AD 30 (+/- a year or two) had rendered the doings of the Temple obsolete. Even the veil of the Temple (which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of Temple ) was torn in two (Matt 27:51) at His death. Believe in His death and you will be forgiven. Believe in His resurrection and you will live. If the matter you raise still troubles you, you should avoid all contact with women other than your own wife. And if you don't know when she is in what you describe as her period of uncleanliness, then heaven help you.

Q. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the French but not to the Scots. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Scottish people?

A. It doesn't actually say slaves, it says 'bondmen and bondmaids'. People who were poor bonded themselves or their children to someone wealthy. It was a form of social security. It is also written (Exod 21:16) that anyone who steals a man to sell him shall be put to death. So those Muslim slavers who took and sold black slaves to the white man were flat out of order and worthy of death. Don't forget that the man who had slavery outlawed in Britain was William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. Atheists were quite happy with slavery.

Q. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

A. It actually says 'maidservant' not slave. I should have thought you were doing well enough at Capital not to have to sell your daughter as a bonded servant. What a rotten dad you are, to want to get rid of her even though you can afford to keep her. Daughters are precious. So are sons, come to that. You'ld have to be in pretty dire straights 3,000 years ago to sell your children as servants, but I guess they would at least get fed and housed then. Anyway, back to your daughter. I think you would do better to send her to college and then see if she can't get a job. Mind you, most jobs today are just wage-slavery, aren't they? We spend 45% of our time working for the tax-man. Who can be totally free? Only those who trust in Jesus and know the truth will be free, as it is written, 'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)

Q. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself or may I arrange for our vicar to do it?

A. Neither. You need to remember that the ancient principle of 'due process' still persists in our law today, despite a succession of Home Secretaries, including dear David Blunkett, wanting to get rid of it as a bit of an impediment to the Government just locking up whoever they want. So you can't go around putting people to death yourself, that is what we Christians call murder. OK, if someone killed your son or raped your daughter, you might call it vengeance, but you have no personal interest in what your neighbour is doing, it just gets up your nose a bit. Report your neighbour to the police, support your allegation with two witnesses, and see if the police can find a law against what your neighbour is doing. They won't. This country doesn't do a day of rest in any form any more.

Q. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

A. This applies to the High Priest of ancient Israel, who entered into the Holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement. I suppose God has a right to say who was going to approach Him in the Holy of holies. But even if you are a cohen, (a) you won't find the Temple still standing today and (b) all that Temple ritual is past. Jesus has been and has offered Himself for the sins of all who will believe in Him. Job done. Finished.

Q. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

A. God did not want His people looking like the pagan priests of the nations round about with dodgy haircuts and peculiar beards. Getting your hair cut as such isn't wrong in the eyes of God. Exekiel the prophet (Ezek 44:20) says that the rule for the priest is to have his hair cut neatly, not shave his head nor grow his hair stupidly long like what the pagans do. Can't see this was a capital offence, though, even then.

Q. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

A. Clean and unclean animals are done away with by Peter's vision in Acts 10:11-15. My advice if this really worries you is to play as a forward or a back, and not as a midfielder, as they do most throwing in and place-kicking, and certainly don't play in goal. And don't handball either, as that is against the laws of the game.

Q. A friend of mine feels that though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10) it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

A. They are different words in Hebrew, so your friend is right. But in any case, the clean and unclean animals distinction has gone with Peter's vision. So the New Testament abolishes the Old Testament food laws. But the New Testament confirms that homosexual activity is an abomination. Shellfish don't agree with me, but that's another matter. You tuck in to that prawn curry.

Q. My friend tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him as commanded in Leviticus 24:10-16 ?

A. Yes, because it is all a matter of due process. You are a bit for taking the law into your own hands, aren't you? Does your friend actually curse the Name of God like the man in Leviticus did? Anyway, next you must find a judge and jury who will convict him. Unless his blasphemy really is scurrilous, abusive or offensive to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, and tends to vilify the Christian religion, you are unlikely to see a conviction in our land today. Best let your friend know how offended you are and if he persists, get another friend. He sounds a bad sort, anyway.

Q. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

A. Doesn't sound much of a farmer. How is he going to harvest it? Mind you, he could put a fence down the middle, then he would have two fields, and he could sow one crop on one side and the other on the other side, I suppose. As long as his wife does not wear a mixture of wool and linen, she should be OK to go and take part in ancient Israelite society. Back to the future!

Q. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?

A. You don't half have a vicious streak. Once again, in God's design for mankind, the State has the responsibility for the judicial death penalty, not the family. God's law does not allow people to put members of their own family to death. You are thinking of Islam and Hinduism. Oh, and Britain today. When our Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, they took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the State, where it belongs, and placed it on the innocent, within the family, where it does not. Macabre or what?

[Jo]

Hey its not that DST et al dont want truth, its that they point out the inconsistency of your own position, as did the Pope, by citing examples from the one book you draw for relaved truth, which says different things which you choose to ignore.

You wont admit that there are such inconsistencies, which is where your position becomes irrational and untenable and then you accuse your opponents who highlight the inconsistences of not being interested in truth. At best, intellectually dishonest; at worst, downright smug.

I just hope that those mouths are not used to kiss the poor little turkey baster offspring.

"No vows are required for the civil union so there is no legal impediment to 2 friends (regardless of sexual orientation) forming a civil union"

Nor indeed, to two complete strangers doing so, in order to take advantage of the taxation advantages. It would be a laugh if the main use of civil unions was as a tax shelter.

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Believe what you like and don't do what you don't want to do, but leave people alone to live their lives. Believe whatever thousand year old fairy stories you like, but don't cry when someone else wants to live a different way. I disagree with you but I'm not outside your church asking that you be banned from talking to your imaginary buddy god.

[Colin Maxwell]

Jo,

My answer to DST was based on an "if" - I think you are jumping the gun here. I don't know DST's heart and unless you are DST, neither do you.

I don't believe there are any inconsistencies in the Bible. Difficulties perhaps, but then the problem lies with us at this end and our finite understanding and sinful inability to grasp its every last statement.

You accuse me of ignoring parts of the Bible. If this accusation is based on less than half a dozen postings to this site, then I think you are taking upon yourself the office of judge. You know very little about me but you can still come off with
such an allegation.I think this says more about you than it does about me.

I simply stand by what the word of God declares. This is my right. I am quite happy to be vindicated either now or later.

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

oh and by the way "Report your neighbour to the police, support your allegation with two witnesses, and see if the police can find a law against what your neighbour is doing. They won't. This country doesn't do a day of rest in any form any more." admits the authority of the law is greater than the authority of the bible, so if the law says gay unions are OK then where's your problem?

[Hugh Green]

Colin,

As far as I'm concerned, your interpretation of the Bible is your own affair. You have no God-given authority to classify people as 'Sodomites'.

Did you ever wonder why, despite the amount of misery and death inflicted by true evil, denunciation of 'sodomy' is so high on the list for so many in Northern Ireland?

[Jo]

Hey, look above at the lengthy quotes from the Bible above and deal with those issues rather than get judgemental yourself about me pointing them out to you!

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Oh and by the way in my post about "imaginary buddys" I don't mean to belittle true christians who live and let live, turn the other cheek etc. I'm just trying to show the fire and brimstone crowd how words may be petty and hurtfull.

[Jo]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article333943.ece

Here is another type of intolerance. Not everyone can apparently distinguish between sinner and sin.

[Colin Maxwell]

Thank you Pope Whatever your name is for your contributin. For someone who thinks the Bible is a fairy tale, you sure do get pretty angry and upset when it is discussed. I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me quite a lot.

Jo,
More accusations Jo? By the way, you can't get above God's word. You might think* you can..but you can't.

HG It's not my invention. If the cap doesn't fit, then don't wear it.

DV Liberal censorship coming in here! Keep up the good work.

[willowfield]

DV

So don't lecture me about the Gay Marriage

The only lecturing being done is by you.

-it IS a moral affront to those of us who believe the Bible and I see no reason to reconsider my position.

No-one's asking you to reconsider your position: you're entitled to your views. The issue is your attempt to force your views on to everyone else. Many gays don't believe the Bible, and many others do believe it but don't share your interpretation. You wouldn't like them to force their views on to you, so why do you want to force your views on to them?

I note you were unable to explain how "conferring the same economic and legal advantages on homosexuals as those hitherto enjoyed by married heterosexuals WILL seriously undermine the institution of marriage".

Perhaps you could try?

[DST]

Of course the Bible is a bit of a mess - if, that is, you want to use it as a literal word-for-word guide to how you live your life.

I think that's the point of the Bible - it's a source of conflicting material that forces us to act as real moral agents. It makes us act like grown-ups. God doesn't tell us what the right thing to do is in every case - we have to decide that for ourselves, based on the context and the basic principles / imperatives set out in the Bible / intuited by ourselves (pretty much anyone can come up with "love thy neighbour..." by themselves - which is its strength).

So what I am saying is... I don't believe the Bible is the truth. I believe it points the way to truth, which is more important.

And finally... contrast the difference between a Western society (built on the Christianity and our challenging Bible, which begs interpretation and thought) and the Islamic world. Their Koran is apparently the direct product of divine revelation, spoken by God to Mohammed. Can you say that this kind of unchallengeable and inflexible doctrine is what you'd like to see the Bible become? (in any case, every Bible comes with a clue that argues against literal interpretation - each book is named after (at least one of) the individuals who wrote it - it's a mass-collaboration between hundreds of people over the centuries - that is its unique power).

Anyway... my basic point is: God won't be losing any sleep over this civil unions thing. I would hope He'll be more concerned with that raped young woman that Jo mentions. If he is, however, a doctrinaire rules-stickler and jobsworth, who created the universe merely to preside over a cosmic bureaucracy of smallminded, baffling and ungenerous rules then He does not deserve to be worhipped.

[Colm]

Colin

Where is the liberal censorship? or any kind of censorship here? Are you being prevented from saying what you feel. No, and neither is anyone else here. Please don't try and make yourself out to be a victim of censorship when you are clearly free to say whatever you want.

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Any nonsensical justification of hatred makes me extremely angry.

[Colm]

Great post DST

[willowfield]

Liberal censorship? That is a contradiction in terms. It is the conservatives who are trying to impose their views on others, while liberals - by definition - emphasise allowing the individual to make his or her own choices within parameters set by wider society for the good of us all.

These type of issues really illuminate the confusion that lies at the heart of DV et al. They claim to be "libertarians" yet burst into rage when certain libertarian policies are put into practice - especially if it's to do with gays.

[DST]

... and Colin if I may back up Colm, why abuse freedom of speech by deliberately using provocative words like "sodomite"? I'm not crazy about being referred to in those terms... I think your justification of using God's word is flimsy. Shall I call you a "missionary-positionist" henceforth? Or do I presume too much knowledge about your private life?

[David Vance]

DST,

The rapist will be answerable to the Almighty - just as any others who flout Gods's word.

Jo,

I wasn't here at the weekend but obviously all such violence is disgraceful and warrants severe punishment.

Willowfield,

You're quite the pedant but not on ATW. Being a kind person I have referred you to Stanley Kurz excellent work - read it.

Henry,

Good points and good answers.

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

DST, nice post, I'm glad there are christians who are pragmatic and tolerant like you (I suspect you are the silent majority). A small section of hate-peddlers give the rest of you a bad name in the eyes of us non believers.

Colm,

Hugh Greene wrote: "As far as I'm concerned, your interpretation of the Bible is your own affair. You have no God-given authority to classify people as 'Sodomites'."

Have I not? Why not? If I have (and I do) then someone telling me that I haven't amounts to censorship.

I'm not playing the victim here.

Pope Buckfast. Who says we hate gays? You are working yourself up into a lather. Save the blood vessels.

[COLIN MAXWELL]

Colm,

Hugh Greene wrote: "As far as I'm concerned, your interpretation of the Bible is your own affair. You have no God-given authority to classify people as 'Sodomites'."

Have I not? Why not? If I have (and I do) then someone telling me that I haven't amounts to censorship.

I'm not playing the victim here.

Pope Buckfast. Who says we hate gays? You are working yourself up into a lather. Save the blood vessels.

[willowfield]

DV

You're quite the pedant but not on ATW. Being a kind person I have referred you to Stanley Kurz excellent work - read it.

Do us all a favour and explain your own views.

And explain why you want to impose your views on others?

Why are you so unwilling to defend your views? It gives the impression that they are ill-thought-out.