God's word
This letter is in response to the Feb. 12 letter 'Traditional marriage,' asking to which "traditional marriage" the Rev. Ron Baity is referring ("Same-sex ballot strategy forming," Feb. 4). I would submit that my pastor, the Rev. Ron Baity, is referring to the traditional marriage between one man and one woman as set aside by God Almighty when he first created mankind as recorded in his holy book the Bible.
I know all the arguments the opposition has set forth, ie, those listed by the letter writer, which I won't waste space repeating. I would submit that God's word has not changed one iota and his word still means the same. All those who want to be so progressive and deny God's word will one day be judged by the very word they want to change to suit their own desires.
Furthermore, all of us will one day be judged by God Almighty for not studying his word and finding out just how he wants us to live: In his righteousness as provided by Jesus Christ.
ALICE R. JOYCE
Winston-Salem
Diversity
Given its liberal trend over the past few years, I was not surprised to see Wake Forest University hire Imam Khalid Griggs and embrace Islam ("Imam says he's had warm reception at WFU," Feb. 13). I can see them placing an arrow on the steeple of Wait Chapel, pointing toward Mecca to provide proper orientation for prayer and placing a minaret on Deacon Tower. Think of the possible revenues from naming rights.
I have been a critic of the annual raising of tuition far exceeding inflation at an institution that spends so lavishly on sports and sport facilities. At least a small portion is going to possible spiritual enlightenment of students.
Perhaps next year the school will hire an atheist advisor, a Buddhist monk and a Voodoo practitioner for diversity. We can't have too much diversity. Can we?
THOMAS L. GWYNN
Advance
Finish the Thought
Last Saturday we asked readers to complete the sentence, "The victors in the May primary vote for an amendment banning gay marriage in North Carolina will be ..."
"… stunned and shocked by the surprisingly broad impact on unmarried straight couples in their congregations, on businesses deciding not to come to North Carolina because of the difficult challenges facing their gay and lesbian employees, and other major businesses deciding to leave because of their national commitments to equal rights, and the dramatic increase in suicides by youngsters and teens despondent because they see life in North Carolina as hopeless."
ROBERT CONN
"There can be no winners, for whoever comes up short in the vote will just continue to try to change the other side's point of view."
FRANK SCISM
"... those who believe in Natural Law."
ROSE M. WALSH
"… none of us. Why are we spending time and money on this issue when we have more hungry children than any other area in the nation?"
CYNTHIA GOUGH NANCE
"… the majority of insightful, broadminded citizens who voted against Amendment One, realizing that writing discrimination into the constitution is just plain wrong. What is not being clearly stated is that this amendment will hurt not just same-sex couples but also unmarried couples and children. I urge my fellow citizens to vote against Amendment One."
ANNE G. WILSON
"... ultimately, gays and lesbians. This amendment will either fail in May or, if it passes, be declared unconstitutional at a later date. Of course, the Rev. Ron Baitys of the world will just run out some other homophobic ploy. These are the same old raggedy groups that opposed black civil rights in the 1950s and '60s. Will bigotry never take a holiday?"
KAM BENFIELD
"… able to go back to an unimpeded spreading of their foolish creation notions and perhaps mount a search for Noah's Ark. That, with the assumption that 'victory' means the further erosion of civil rights for gays. How do 'evangelicals' view genetic research?"
KENNETH B. SCALF
" … those who have enough backbone to stand up against unrighteousness. Victorious only because God Almighty answers the prayers of Christians across our state who want the marriage amendment added to our constitution to ban gay marriage (John 14:14). Marriage is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) not between two men or two women (Leviticus 20:13)."
Reid Joyce
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
ReplyDelete2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 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?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.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). He also 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 them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Let’s get all this straight:
Delete1. Your friend is wrong. You can own slaves from any country except your own, Canada included. But none of them can be white people. Black, brown ,yellow, red, striped, whatever = OK.
2. A friend of mine’s daughter was kidnapped a few years ago and sold into slavery in Mexico. I think the guy got $50,000 for her. Allowing for inflation, that would be about $64,000 today.
3. There is no answer to this question, nor any other question regarding man/woman relationships. Women, as with god, work in mysterious ways.
4. Yes. Smiting is never optional. And do not be confused by sissy modern dictionary definitions. When god said smite, he meant kill’em dead.
5. Police officers were created by god to kill people for civil offenses such as car theft and spitting on the sidewalk. Being a child of god involves responsibility…since this is an offense against god, you must do it yourself.
6. There are different levels of abomination. For instance, a Class 1 Abomination, the highest, would include being a politician or lawyer or a fundamentalist preacher. Eating shellfish or engaging in homosexual conduct are both Class 5 Abominations, unless you are doing them both at the same time, in which case they become a Class 4 Abomination.
7. Just wear contacts. God will never notice.
8. Stoning. See #10. If their hair was cut by a homosexual hairdresser, extra large stones should be used.
9. Jeez, think for yourself once in a while. What are gloves made of?
10. Sorry, but the things that you mention are all Class 1 Abominations and so must be punished accodingly. The whole town must participate. This serves two purposes:
a. Communal activity promotes civility and comradeship.
b. Should the police find out that you have killed someone, they will never be able to prove who struck the fatal blow.
Rose Walsh "...those who believe in Natural Law." Really now? There are no guns in nature, guess that rules out the 2nd amendment. Natural law says a starving animal that sees food eats it. So hungry people should be able to go into grocery stores and eat. That's natural law, but man's law says you have to pay for it or risk being arrested. There are no clothes in nature, so why can't I go nude in public, au natural.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRemoved at poster's unwitting request: "Ban it."
DeleteAsk and ye shall have :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYour opinion re the amendment is within the bounds of discussion. The continued hindmost references are not.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletecorrection-orifice I know how Rush hates spelling errors.
DeleteAnon, please discontinue your anal references, no matter how they are rephrased.
DeleteImagine that, Alice R Joyce and Reid Joyce, the alpha and the omega, are married and members of Bereft Baptist Church.
ReplyDeleteA poster at Journalnow (I assume a Berea member, as the verbiage was identical to the Joyce's) also said I'd have to answer for my views on gay marriage before God.
DeleteI've committed more than a few sins, and maybe I'll have to answer for them, but my support for gay marriage rights sure as hell isn't one of them.
Besides, those Bereans are awfully eager to condemn people to hell. If that type of person is in heaven, I'll take my chances elsewhere thank you very much. Not exactly the most compassionate people you'd ever want to meet.
LOL, it must be driving the Bereans crazy because after I posted to the Readers' Forum on the Journal this morning, for some reason it stopped accepting posts.
DeleteI highly recommend Bereft Baptist as cheap Sunday morning entertainment. Put on your phoniest christian face and go hear the very Reverend Baity spew his special brand of redneck hatred.
ReplyDeleteBest of all, it's free. Yes, they pass an offering plate, but no one will notice if you just pretend to put something in.
Obama's most recent constitutional blunder (forcing churches to provide condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, etc) will be challenged in court, and also overruled, I predict.
ReplyDeleteAbout 15% of new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of different races or ethnicities, more than doubling the 1980 level of 6.7%, according to the study.
ReplyDeleteCNN
CNN and the study are blending race and ethnicity to show an increase in 'racially' mixed marriages. If ethnicity were removed, there would be virtually no change. CNN's liberal propaganda continues, but dumb Democrats suck it up.
As always, zero finds it impossible to accurately read and report anything, something most of us learned to do in the second grade.
Delete1. "(forcing churches to provide condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, etc)" The original policy did not force churches to buy anything. It required all employers to purchase insurance covering contraception for their employees...a very good idea. When the crybaby catholics complained, the administration exempted all churches, so nothing will be going to court or anywhere else.
2. The report referenced above is a two year old Pew report which zero was obviously unable to read. It reports quite clearly that marriages between black Americans and white Americans have changed dramatically over the past 50 years, from 100 per 100,000 in 1960 to 625 per 100,000 in 1980 to 1,667 per 100,000 in 2008, a nearly 17 fold increase.
zero needs to take some classes in reading and comprehension.
I'd hope the same people would be just as zealous in defending religious liberty when a devout Muslim claims exemption from civil law in favor of Sharia. Surely they would be!
Delete:-)
Yeah...hold your breath on that one.
DeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: Actually, according to the Old Testament, the original concept of marriage was between one man and multiple women. The US, of course, is a secular govt and all laws are required to have a secular purpose.
LTE 2: Further proof that those who embrace and use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" haven't the foggiest idea what the terms mean. Hiring an Iman is indicative of a "liberal trend"?? Take off your ideological tinged glasses and go read a book.
Finish the thought: the vote will probably wind up being a moot point as Mr. Benfield states. The CA Prop 8 lawsuit most likely won't be heard by the SCOTUS because the 9th decision specifically stated their opinion only applied to the specifics of the CA case and was not to be considered a blanket statement. Eventually there will be a case that reaches the SCOTUS at which point the 14th Amendment and the Loving vs. VA precedent would have to be taken into consideration.
Finally, you've obviously started to do some research before you spout off. Yes, the Prop 8 lawsuit probably won't be heard by the SCOTUS.
DeleteRemember your infamous statement that the a ruling by the SCOTUS on the CA case will make gay/lesbian marriages legal throughout the U.S.? I'll bet not.
I'm predicting a good ending to badended behavior.
Delete"Nationally in the U.S., the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea is currently about 5% in men who have sex with men -- about 12 times higher than among heterosexual men."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thebody.com/content/art31700.html
A vote for male/female marriage in N.C. website has popped-up.
ReplyDeleteforhttp://www.voteformarriagenc.com/