There could hardly be a more blatant violation of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. The only reason Obama would want to place his 'government spies' in news rooms is as a first step toward controlling the press-- another typical move by our president to rescind guaranteed Constitutional rights, in the 'grand tradition' of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and other socialist/Communist dictators.
Look no further to find the reason why so many young people are 'tolerant' of homosexuality and approving of so-called 'gay marriage'-- because their personal rejection of God's law concerning sex-- their abuse of God's holy gift by engaging in sexual union outside the sacred bonds of marriage-- disqualifies them from assessing correctly the morally heinous character of homosexual acts. Their own lawless lifestyle strips them of the moral discernment needed to recognize sexual perversion when they are staring it in the face-- so they offer no objection to government funded efforts to pervert the institution of marriage.
The American people need to realize that Obama and Holder are criminals deliberately seeking to overthrow our American system of government which is based on the recognition of natural law ("the laws of nature and nature's God") and natural rights (God-given "unalienable" rights) as the foundation of our legal code. By trying to pass legislation that relentlessly attacks and nullifies the 'natural law' basis of our civil laws-- for example, by inventing absurd, arbitrary, man-made distinctions between 'opposite-sex marriage' and 'same-sex marriage'-- they are simply trampling on and deliberately seeking to decimate our American form of government, and above all, our Judeo-Christian culture and the moral values enshrined in our legal code. They are lawless criminals, and the people of the United States should recognize them as such and appeal to state and local officials to lead the way in resisting their tyranny by nullifying any and all rulings of the federal court that aim at destroying state sovereignty and the moral foundation of our civil code. No American should be forced to regard the sexual jerry-rigging of two men or two women as a true 'sexual union' or the monstrous sin of sodomy as constituting a legitimate legal basis for marriage.
What Pat Robertson needs to realize is that Christian beliefs to the unregenerate mind are all 'ridiculous,' they are all 'impossible' and 'nonsense.' Simply by affirming the truths of the Apostle's Creed, Christians already look like a 'joke' to the natural man, for whom the gospel itself is foolishness. We won't stop appearing like fools, clowns, and idiots to the mind that hates God until we deny every truth in the Bible rooted in the recognition of God's Almighty, supernatural, miracle-working power. We most certainly will not win their respect simply because we buy into theories of origins based on pure naturalism and a uniformitarian view of earth's history. What we need to tell the natural man is the most ridiculous intellectual posture to take as a rational human being is to deny the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, if Christ rose from the dead-- which is what God's Word affirms and 'many infallible proofs' corroborate-- then the most ridiculous thing is to deny Jesus' view on anything, including His view of the Old Testament and the origin of the world.
GsTexas, Well said! The hypocrisy and blatantly subversive goals of this administration in its passion to replace hard-won American liberty with Big Brother socialist tyranny-- is utterly breathtaking.
Just finished reading David Horowitz's booklet entitled, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: the Alinksy Model." It sounds like of people in our government right now-- perhaps this judge, as well-- are following the Alinksy model for bringing about social change. They using the power of public office to 'destroy' existing social structures, values and norms, in order to impose new ones. Their whole goal is the destroy the status quo in order to bring about in a revolutionary manner the type of classless, morally libertine, socialist utopia they want to see, by whatever means it takes (in their view, the end justifies the means-- and that means using the law as a tool to undermine and destroy the rule of law.) That is exactly what I see happening with a ruling like this one-- a judge using the power of his judicial office like a wrecking ball, to destroy social order and bring about social and moral chaos. Little wonder that Alinsky dedicated his main book to Lucifer, the model 'rebel.'
This looks to me like a strategy to change Roman Catholic attitudes toward "same-sex" relationships in an underhanded manner, by focusing on children instead of adults. By trying to win sympathy for children who are being parented by people involved in these relationships, the pope seems to be wanting to 'soften attitudes' toward practicing homosexuals in the church. "After all, if we come through as condemning, it's going to hurt the children." This is a sickening sentimental approach to issues that really concern the unyielding rigor, holiness, and righteousness of God's moral law. To say, "We must change our condemnatory view of same-sex relationships for the sake of the children involved" is really a sly and slippery strategy to whittle away at biblical standards of sexual morality by degrees. Not surprising that this should come from a man who pretentiously claims to be the "vicar of Christ" on earth.
Our culture has reached this low point because the professing church in America has for many years failed to proclaim the whole counsel of God and has failed to denounce sin from the pulpit for fear of appearing too 'negative.' So-called churches which have abandoned the authority of Scripture have tolerated for years false shepherds in the churches and false teachers in the seminaries who have denied completely the biblical gospel, by denying such cardinal doctrines as the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the necessity of repentance, the eternity of hell, etc. Such churches have also abandoned the practice of church discipline and turned a blind eye to such things as 'cohabitation' among church members. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the general culture reflects this decline by denying the plain teaching of the Bible about marriage and God's design for human sexuality? What is happening in the culture is shameful and lamentable, but it no surprise when one considers how the fear of God and the truth of God has been excluded for so many years in so many so-called churches throughout our land. It is the logical outcome of a slow decline into apostasy.
Dear Mike, You ask, "Does this judge even have a clue how stupid his statement is? No knowledge of biology?" Sure, he has a clue. Sure he has knowledge. What this judge is doing is called "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness"-- an act, Paul says, that provokes God's righteous wrath and judgment.
Talk about willful blindness! Obviously, a homosexual couple cannot 'procreate' without the use of a third party providing a necessary missing component for conception to take place-- a component which the couple cannot provide for themselves. I suppose people will argue that that is no different than heterosexual couples using modern technology to overcome infertility. But it is wrong for society to deny to children the right to be raised by a mother and a father, and it is wrong for society to encourage surrogacy and sperm donation as a 'business enterprise,' in which people are encouraged to conceive children for whom they take no personal responsibility. Every child has a natural right to be raised by the mother and father who conceive them and bring them into this world. They also have a right to receive the input of both a male and female parent. Situations that fall short of that divinely ordained pattern should not be held up as a perfectly 'normal' and exemplary pattern of family life. For any society to overthrow the natural right of children to be raised by their biological parents by creating a system which deliberately produces abnormality is to engage in high-handed rebellion against God and the order of family life He has ordained.
There is such a broad range of people who identify themselves as Charismatic, it is hard to lump them all together. I have friends call themselves as "Charismatic Reformed" Christians. In practice, it seems to me their theology differs little from that of Martin Lloyd-Jones, since they never have any distinctively Charismatic features in the worship service of their church-- no tongues, prophecies, healings, etc. Their position is basically that God may give miraculous gifts in the present day, but that it is left to His sovereign will. On the other hand, there are those who believe Christians should actively 'seek' the extraordinary gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians, and if these are lacking in a church, something is wrong-- the church is quenching the Holy Spirit. It is this latter group I consider the most extreme, for they make no distinction at between what was normative in the apostolic era and what is normative today. Calvin speaks of 'traces or shades' of the apostolic gifts remaining in the church, though he clearly believes that revelatory gifts have ceased to be normative, now that the canon of Scripture is closed. We surely must guard against lumping together in the same box all who regard themselves as in some sense 'non-cessationist.' There are various views.
Washington Cathedral has clearly become a 'synagogue of Satan' where the gospel is denied and where evil is called good and good evil. Men like Hall should be recognized as for what they are-- wolves in sheep's clothing, emissaries of Satan dressed up like angels of light, whose purpose is to deceive and destroy the souls of men (and even their bodies, since the homosexual lifestyle is dangerously unhealthy, often characterized by high levels of promiscuity and casual sexual encounters that expose the practitioner to all manner of deadly diseases and even physical trauma through the grossly unnatural acts they perform). It may sound harsh to call Mr. Hall a 'wolf' or 'emissary of Satan,' but the Word of God of God calls us to 'expose' the works of evil and the workers of iniquity. God's Word is not unclear on this matter of God's design for human sexuality, nor will He be mocked.
It is so very clear that the agenda of President Obama-- I say, Obama, since he is the one who initiated and obviously supports these outrageously pagan, immoral, anti-Christian policies-- is to push all morally principled Christians out of the military, so that he will have a pagan, godless 'fighting force' that is totally devoted to advancing his Marxist agenda. It is hard to believe this is happening in the United States of America. Christians need to be willing to give their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to push back against the homofascist takeover of our country. We are a nation at war-- the problem is, many people's eyes are still closed to this terrible reality of the warfare being waged against our nation by those who despise its Constitutional form of government and its Judeo-Christian heritage and culture.
Paul's argument in Romans 1 is that God judged people for their rejection of the one true and living God by giving them over to a form of sexual behavior that is contrary to God's design. Because of a sinful exchange men made-- they exchanged the glory of God for an image in the form of corruptible birds,beasts, etc.-- God judged by handing them over to another "exchange"-- men exchanged the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust for one another. This language of 'exchange' shows that for Paul, it is the act of homosexual copulation itself that is a violation of the natural order and, therefore, under God's judgment. Moreover, it is an exceedingly unhealthy and dangerous form of conduct physically, for unless some type of prophylactic device is used male homosexual copulation will lead inevitably to disease and death. The perpetrator of such acts exposes himself to potentially fatal disease, and it is just as certain that no new life will ever be conceived through such deviant sexual activity. It leads to death for all involved, and never to life. Matthew Vines is a false prophet, therefore, who is twisting crystal clear Scriptural passages to deceive people. May the Word of God itself expose his hypocrisy and his lies.
God can establish a certain "law" (a designated pattern of behavior, conduct, motion, operation that created objects follow generally) without having His hands tied from setting aside that law at will. We can like this to traffic laws. The highway department places traffic signs that establish a designated pattern for the flow of traffic (laws), but a traffic cop can set aside that pattern at will in order to direct traffic to flow contrary to what the signs say. That's what I mean by 'law'-- a regular pattern of motion, etc., to which created objects generally conform in their ordinary operation. Such laws are descriptive, however, not prescriptive apart from God, who is free to set them aside at His pleasure whenever He chooses to do so. I have no problem with the terms law in this 'descriptive' sense. If you don't like that term, however, I won't argue with you over an issue of semantics. We both agree that God establishes regular patterns in the natural world that created objects generally follow-- for example, a beam of light generally travels at the same speed, but God can set aside that pattern at will. The existence of regularities makes the universe a livable place and bears witness to the wisdom of God. But natural 'laws' are subject to God's sovereign will.
By order, I mean evidence of design, purpose, rationality in the natural world, and that obviously includes "regularities" in nature that make it possible for us to function in the world, to develop technologies, etc. I know that if I want to go through a door, I have to turn the doorknob and push or pull. Unless the door is locked or stuck, it will open, as a general rule. Our experience of the world around us leads us to expect future regularity corresponding to past regularity. These regularities are often called laws, and I have no trouble with the concept of natural law, if we understand that term in the Christian sense of being descriptive, not prescriptive-- as describing what DOES occur in our experience, not what MUST occur because miracles are deemed impossible. Deists believe even God Himself cannot set aside so-called 'natural law" because they view the universe as a 'closed,' not an 'open' system. I believe the regularities we experience are evidence of a rational ordered mind behind the universe, but they are not evidence that the universe is 'closed' to God's miraculous activity, (which is what the Deist believes, and the secularist who embraces materialistic naturalism.) They have no warrant to regard natural laws as immutable. Only God is immutable.
The Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther believed in natural law, which they equated with creational law. The fact Roman Catholics affirm the concept of natural law does not in itself make that concept unbiblical; by that standard, we would have to declare the doctrine of the Trinity or the virgin birth unbiblical, for they affirm those doctrines. There is nothing in Psalm 19 to say the heavens declare the glory of God only to the saved; the declarative power of the heavens is by no means limited only to the saved, but to the unsaved as well, as the context makes clear. Moreover, I never said "a man blind from birth cannot know God and is thus not accountable to him." That is putting words in my mouth. I said that a blind man cannot see the heavens and thus the testimony of the heavens does not reach him. But the heavens are not the only feature of creation that bears witness to the existence and glory of God. A blind man has other senses through which the testimony of creation to God's existence reaches him-- the sense of hearing, by which the sound of music or bird song can reach his ears-- as well as his own intelligence and conscience and mere existence, which are all in themselves an infallible, irrefutable testimony to the man of God's existence.
Actually, Paul says that "God's invisible attributes are clearly SEEN, being understand through the things that are made. . ." The "things that are made" include such things as the visible heavens, according to Psalm 19. "The heavens declare the glory of God. . ." To a blind man, the heavens declare nothing, because he cannot see them. But to someone who has eyes and who sees the heavens, they do declare God's glory. How? By "showing" God's handiwork through the sense of sight. You cannot look at the heavens and not realize that they were made by a God of glory. The atmosphere does exhibit order, in fact, insofar as it contains the exact quantity of components to sustain life on our planet, in connection with other 'fine-tuned' features of the earth-- such its distance from the sun. All these features exhibit order-- and I stand by my claim that the two dictionary definitions of 'order' I gave are objective, clear, and easy to understand. How God reveals His moral standards to men through creation is not explained in Scripture, but it isn't hard to see how people through the light of reason and conscience would simply "know" that God's purpose for sex is heterosexual, simply by observing the self-evident design of the reproductive organs.