The US Joins the UN in Promoting Perversity

What am I talking about? Just read this news story. I know presedent Obama is leftist, but this is rediculious. You almost wonder if there might be more here then just a leftest agenda, but also, a global governance agenda. Anyway, whatever the reason, I think it is going to be a long, at least, two years with the left holding power in all three branches of government. How long will it be until we will be like Lot living in Sodom? I don’t know. I do know that, right now, we have a very corrupt central government, and we must really be praying for the heart of our nation.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “The US Joins the UN in Promoting Perversity”

  1. Jason Stumpner Says:

    I read the article. As far as I can see, this is a positive developement. While I doubt that this resolution will pass, as there are too many islamist nations which would prohibit homosexuality, I think that people should still be allowed to make there own choices in life, in accordance with there free will. Not all things that are considered to be a shame should be a crime. And what about adultry/fornication? That is also against the laws of all of the Abrahamic faiths. But if violators were to still be punished, according to the scriptures, Julie would have been killed, and Trenton would never have been born. I for one am glad to be living in a free civil society, rather than a theonomy/theocracy. In the age of grace, it should be up to God to judge people. For there sin is not against you, and we are not a covenant people, as a nation. So the law should not apply to us all nationaly, only personaly. Homosexuals already suffered enough during the Holocaust. They should not have to face the same repression all over again.

  2. otrmin Says:

    Jason,

    First of all, do you believe people should be able to choose to murder? If people should be able to make their own choices in life in accordance with their own free will, then people should have the free will to go after you with a gun.

    Secondly, I firmly believe that what happened with Julie would have never happened had God’s law been followed. If homosexuality were a capital crime, it is likely that her husband would have been faithful to her, as the law of God is used of God to restrain such evils as homosexuality [1 Timothy 1:9-10]. It also would have been a corrective had he decided to continue in his sin, since he would have been called upon to repent, or face the consequences of his actions. When that, was not done, and it all came out in the wash, and the divorce was complete, it is easy to understand what followed.

    Keep in mind, Jason, that sin breeds sin. God’s law is meant to restrain sin at the root. I firmly believe that Julie’s situation would have never happened had her husband remained faithful to her. What she did was wrong, but it was not unprovoked. Take away the provocation, and I have no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been different.

    Also, not only is the situation with Julie a bad example, but consider this. What would happen if a man goes out and commits adultery, and then gets AIDS, and brings it home to his wife and children? Don’t you believe that such is as bad as murder? I remember hearing of a doctor who, in order to get even with one of his patients, got ahold of the blood of someone who was HIV positive, and injected the blood into the patient’s body, after he had given her some medication to temporarily paralyze her. He was charged with murder. How is that any different, just simply because the person, rather than injecting it into their body, puts it in their body by sexual relations?

    Also, who ever said we had to be a covenant people in order for the law to apply to us? Did you not ever read these verses from Leviticus?:

    Leviticus 18:26-28 ‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.

    Notice that the nations are spewed out of the land for not obeying the very sexual laws that are laid out here in Leviticus 18. Not only that, but Ezra did not think that the law was just for the covenant people. Look at how he reacts to this decree of Artaxerxes:

    Ezra 7:25-27 “You, Ezra, according to the wisdom of your God which is in your hand, appoint magistrates and judges that they may judge all the people who are in the province beyond the River, even all those who know the laws of your God; and you may teach anyone who is ignorant of them. 26 “Whoever will not observe the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed upon him strictly, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of goods or for imprisonment.” 27 Blessed be the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to adorn the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem,

    Now, how could Ezra react in this way if the law of God were only for the “covenant people?” The territory we are talking about here is far more than just the land of Israel.

    Also, going to the New Testament won’t help either, since, first of all, I already mentioned Paul saying that the law should be used to restrain homosexuality [in 1 Timothy 1:9-10], and, obviously, the laws against homosexuality are penal in character [Leviticus 20:13]. However, it gets even worse, because Paul calls that state a “minister of God” [Romans 13:4]. Hence, the state has an obligation before God in its ruling and laws.

    You say that God should judge people. I agree. However, God works through means, and one of those means through which he works is civil governments.

    Finally, homosexuals have not been through a “holocaust,” any more than murderers have. Being a homosexual is not like being Jewish or being black. It is a behavior. Being Jewish is not a behavior, nor is being black. Homosexuality is a behavior, and as such, needs to be morally judged as right or wrong by the standards of God’s law. It is very clear what God’s law says. The only question is whether or not we will truly be able to pray the 119th Psalm, and learn to, rather than see these laws as abhorant, see them as beautful, good, and holy.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  3. Jason Stumpner Says:

    Murder is unjust, homosexuality is just unrighteous. Strangely enough lesbians are the only people who would never get aids, as it is transmitted through the male organ. Yes STDs are a serious epidemic, not just A.I.D.s, but also Gonorrhea, etc. But unkwowingly giving your partner an STD is not the same as intentialy killing them. One should take propper precautions, and/or better yet not have promiscutitous sex in the first place. To execute people for there personal choices is state sanctioned murder though. And some STDs you might not even necessarily die from either, like Herpes for example. Even candida yeast infections can be spread through sexual intercourse. Should eating sweets, like chocolates, be banned then, lest it feed the yeast, and cause us to get jock itch and/or urinary burning? I think that gay men should not marry, in the first place. They obviously are not given the calling to marriage. Bisexuals, on the other hand, can feel satisfied with only the opposite sex. But I think that both of us would agree that marriage should not be mandatory. Otherwise we would have a “shotgun marriage”, literaly. The land beyond the river was the promised land given to the Hebrews, as God’s chosen people. Unlike the islamic terrorists, Jews do not try to impose there values upon the entire world. But as part of the priveledge of living in Caanan, all residents had to agree to abide by the law of Moses. But you never would hear of Hebrews trying to conquer the Greeks, who by the way were known for there homosexuality. Especially in the island of Lesbos, from which we get the term lesbian. In fact, ironicly enough, the Greeks, under Alexander the great, were able to conquer the lands from Macedonia to India. Which is why much of the Bible was written in Greek, the language of a largely homosexual people. LOL You might not know this but homosexuals were victimised by the Holocaust, with an uppercase H. They were sent to the concentration camps, along with the Jews. They were made to wear the pink triangle, while in the camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle This was in accordance with Paragraph 175. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175 If America ever becomes a dominionist dictatorship, you’d have to kill thousands of people, and or incarcerate them. It would be a big burden for the police state. And not only would you have to make up pink triangles for the gays/lesbians, you’d have to have a red one for me too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges

  4. otrmin Says:

    Jason,

    How is unknowingly giving someone an std different than intentionally giving them an std? Aren’t you saying that you really don’t care about the life of your wife and children when you go sleeping around with the potential to contract a fatal std? Imagine someone who goes into a bank, and just starts opening fire, and shooting at random times and in random spots. Then, when he is arrested, he tries to get out of it by saying, “But I wasn’t trying to hit anybody. And, besides, there was a chance that all of my bullets would miss anyway.” Now, even if all of his bullets did miss, don’t you agree that this man is a threat to society? When you sleep around on your wife, you are putting the life of your wife and children on the line. That is why God prescribes the death penalty.

    Also, it is not true that a man cannot contract an std. I have heard of more than one story of a man who went into a prostitute, and ended up contracting an std, and then brought it home to his family. That is an extremely common story.

    Also, Jason, again if the law just applied to the privledge of living in Canaan, then why does Ezra praise God for having Artaxerxes enforce the law of God in an area other than Canaan? Why does the apostle Paul say that the law should be used to restrain homosexuality, and why is it that the state itself is a minister of God? Not only that, why are the ungodly nations of Leviticus 18 specifically said to be speued out of the land because of their disobedience to the laws of Leviticus 18? In Micah chapter 2, the Bible says that the law of God will go forth *from* mount Zion, as the nations stream to it to learn of the ways of God. The idea that all people in all nations are to obey God’s law is all over the Bible.

    You say that the Hebrews never conquered the Greeks. Theonomists do not believe in propagating the gospel by the sword. We reason with people and convince them by the word of God, not by the sword. Hence, the Jews were doing nothing more than what we do. The only way theonomy would every become a reality is if the people of America wanted it.

    Also, if America does ever become theonomic, it is not true that we would have to kill or incarcerate thousands of people, and it would not be like the Nazi holocaust. First of all, for any capital case, the law of God requires and least two or three lines of confirmation. Hence, the only way in which you are going to get executed is if you do this stuff out in the open. Also, [and there are some theonomists who will disagree with me on this] I believe that, since the laws pertaining to homosexuality are not a lex talionis, a homosexual should be given the chance to repent and reform, and that he should be given help to do that. Hence, the only way that you would ever be executed is if you did your homosexuality out in the open, and refused to repent.

    Secondly, Puritan New England had laws requiring the death penalty for sodomy. As far as I know, we have only found three total cases in their almost three hundred years of existence of someone getting executed for sodomy. So, no, it is not true that we would have to execute thousands of people. First of all, because execution can only be done under certain circumstances, and secondly, because it has been done before, and it only resulted in one person every one hundred years getting executed for it.

    Also, Jason, I was wondering what theonomists you have listened to. Have you listened to Rushdooney, Bahnsen, DeMar, Gentry, or any of the modern day theonomists?

    God Bless,
    Adam

  5. Jason Stumpner Says:

    I’ve just read about theonomy, and dominion theology, in general. I haven’t bothered to actually read any of there teachings. The difference between recklessly shooting at people, and recklessly having sex, is that with the former there is criminal intent, while with the latter it is carelessness. Also your arguement could logicly create a slipperly slope, whose full implications you might not even realise. For example, there are congenital diseases, like hemmphilia, and sickle cell anemia, etc. If we were to apply your judicial standard in these cases, you could charge the parents as being responsible for damaging there children. There might therefore be a law that all those with a medical history of genetic disorders must register with the government, and be sterilised. Those failing to do so, who give birth to offspring with birth defects, would be executed for murder. Now I’m sure that the parents would not have intended to have passed along the diseases. However by your reasoning, intent would not matter. What would matter would be the action, not the motivation.And sickle cell anemia is prevelent amongst the black race. So one could use your arguement as a reason to prohibit miscegenation. And like I said, lesbians do not contract H.I.V. Straight men, and women can, and gay men, but not female homosexuals. I never posted that men can not get STDs. In fact AIDs, as I understand, can only be passed by male sexual contact, which is why lesbians are immune to it. And what would be done with the minority of people who do not wish to live under the theonomy? Would we be able to immigrate to Canada perhaps? And then if you guys were to take over Canada, then what would I do? I hope that courts would rule your policies as being illegitimate. Or else I fear that there will be a civil war. Just like when Oliver Cromwell took over. And then we’d have to fight on opposing sides.:( As to Salem, just ask all of the women killed for alledgedly being witches about the justness of Salem’s judicial system. Of course you couldn’t literally ask them, without using an ouija board at least. LOL But if that example is any indication, someone could be wrongfuly accused of homosexuality, and then be hanged for it. So in closing, I as well as other libertarians feel that a persons private life is really none of your buisness. You’re responsible for yourself, and the rest of us are responsible for ourselves. The Amish do not try to get us english to follow there ordnung. If they had succeded in imposing there ordnung on the rest of society, I probally wouldn’t even be able to have this conversation. Since there’d be no computers, or electricity. ROTFL Unless they were Beachy Amish, then I might.:)

  6. otrmin Says:

    Jason,

    The difference is that, in the case of the two people with blood and genetic disorders, the situation of having those disorders *cannot* be avoided. In the case of whether or not you have an std, it *can* be avoided by remaining faithful to your wife. When you deliberately go out of your way to put yourself, your wife, and your children in harms way, that is why I said that God commands the death penalty for such behavior.

    Secondly, Salem is, again, a perfect example of God’s law *not* being followed. In that case, they allowed convicted witches to testify against other people, which is in blatant violation of God’s law that states that one guilty of a crime may not testify against another who is charged with the same offense [Deuteronomy 19:15]. I mean, you can make up some pretty good stories if your life is on the line! That is why I would say that Puritan New England, at this point anyway, was inconsistent with their principles.

    Also, what do people do nowadays who do not want to live under a democracy? If someone’s position is just simply wrong, nothing someone can say will make it right. That is why, what I would say is that you would need to start arguing if Americans and Canadians vote God’s law as the standard for morality. Think about what we are saying and give us a refutation. If you do not or will not, then I have to ask the question as to whether you want to be ruled in truth and righteousness, or whether you want to be ruled by what your own desires want. In fact, the scriptures say that rule by the law of God will make the people rejoice! The nation whose God is the Lord is blessed! Again, what this proves is that your position is not consistent with scripture.

    Finally, are you really wanting to argue that we do in our personal lives is irrelevant to a society? Take that to its logical conclusion. A person who wants to eat a dead human corpse [if, while he was allive, he sold the cannible his corpse to eat] should have the ability to do it. A virgin who wants to be sacrificed to Satan should be able to do it. If someone wants to commit suicide, they should not be prevented from so doing. In all of these instances the government steps in, and you and I would both agree that it is rightfully so. Yet, are these not part of a person’s own private life? This logic does not work, and libertarianism’s philosophical weakness comes in the fact that we live in a society, and the decisions that we make in our personal lives effect other areas of our life, which will, in turn, effect others. The issue is not whether something is personal or non-personal, the issue is whether or not God has given the state jurisdiction over something.

    Also, again, the Amish are a bad example. Where in the Bible is anyone going to get the idea that electricity should not be used? Again, the Amish are a perfect example of God’s law not being followed, and yet, you are taking that, and then trying to, somehow, make it apply to God’s law being followed.

    Finally, you state that you have not read much on this. The fact that I keep seeing misrepresentations should tell you that you need at least [even if you don’t agree with it] read the writings of those with whom you disagree. You will understand better how we argue, and why we argue the way that we do.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  7. Jason Stumpner Says:

    If people do not want to take advantage of all of the freedom available, they can set up a religious colony somewhere, away from mainstreme society. What Edmund Burke would call a “little platoon”. I have not spent time reading christian reconstructionists, just like you probally do not spend time reading marxian socialists, like Rosa Luxemburg, who wrote “Socialism and the Churches”. http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm And I actually would be OK with someone being given permission to eat his corpse. Such a practise is an ancient custom, and is a way to honor the spirit oif the dead, as I understand. Finally if both husband and wife are christians, they shouldn’t have to worry about either one sleeping around, and picking up an STD. And for everyone else, STDs are a natural consequence of there foolish descisions. So what’s the difference whether people die from STDs or die from execution. People die regardless, either directly or indirectly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: