Winston-Salem Journal LTE FR 04/27/12

Renouncing immoral behaviors

The Journal has been quoting various religious ministers in its marriage-amendment articles who denounce Amendment One as discriminatory against homosexuals. I'm no theologian, but my Christian Bible presents homosexual acts as deviant. Read Romans 1:26-27, among others.

Upholding the true dignity of human people requires renouncing those immoral behaviors that denigrate our likeness to God, because they do not reflect his divine nature. Neither does accepting and enshrining into law what he rejects in his divine moral law as written in Scripture. We need only look to abortion, which violates the dignity of women and unborn children, to see our folly in this errant train of thought.

My Bible also states "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Marriage is a divine institution, ordained by God as between man and woman. He created male and female anatomy and chemistry to be complementary. They fit together and become one body, mind, heart and soul. This union reflects the authentic image of God's covenant love because by his grace working through nature, husband and wife can share in his divine work of creation that began in the garden. It also mirrors Christ the Bridegroom's love for his bride, the church (Ephesians Chapter 5).

Tampering with the authentic revelation of marriage will further erode the stability and security of the family and society and any redefinition of marriage is counterfeit and discriminates against God.

---

MARY POEHAILOS

Clemmons

Hateful and redundant

I am writing to urge everyone to vote against Amendment One. It is hateful and it is redundant. Gay marriage is already forbidden in this state.

This amendment would also close the door to civil unions for gay and straight couples alike. It will negatively impact the economy and more importantly the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens. Vote against the amendment.

---

DARREN STALEY

Millers Creek

Taking exception

In response to the April 21 letter "Against Motsinger," I have to take exception to the writer's reasoning.

He claims he is against Elisabeth Motsinger's candidacy for 5th Congressional District because she has a "progressive agenda." According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, progressive means "favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform." It also means "making progress toward better conditions."

I'm sorry, but when did this become a bad thing? Does the writer wish us all to support a candidate with a "regressive agenda"? Webster's defines this as "to move in a backward direction, having backward reasoning."

This doesn't sound like what we need as a people — a group of leaders afraid of change and progress.

This is why our country is in the shape it is in: Too many people afraid of progress.

---

KEVIN G. WEAVIL

Winston-Salem

Poor excuses for amendment

The prevalent arguments for Amendment One are

• the Bible says homosexuality is a sin

• we must protect marriage, and

• the people should decide.

These are poor excuses for this divisive amendment.

None of the few sentences in the Bible addressing homosexuality are attributed to Jesus, who was inclusive of all people, including those scorned by the religious hierarchy of his time. Leviticus prohibits many things Carolinians often do, such as eating barbecue or shrimp or marrying divorced women. Why not legislate against these personal behaviors? Another verse blesses slavery; should we rerun that abomination?

Is there any logical answer to the question "How does it harm my marriage or the marriages of others, if two people of the same sex are married?" The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws and bans denying rights based on legal personal characteristics such as skin color (remember our shameful Jim Crow laws?) or sexual orientation.

"Let the people decide" appears to be an evasion by politicians (some of whom I regard as friends) desiring to "Pontius Pilate" the issue. How about letting the people decide about gerrymandering? Prostitution? Those who voted to put Amendment One on the ballot favor it.

The fact that other states have adopted unjust constitutional provisions denying equal protection of the laws to a classification of people is unpersuasive and Amendment One is an egregious example of such provisions.

Vote "No" and for enlightenment.

---

MURRAY C. GREASON JR.

Winston-Salem

Sum It Up

The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: What would happen if one took every verse of the Bible literally?

* * * * *

Total chaos and confusion.

---

BOB BURWELL

* * * * *

Christian fundamentalists wouldn't be hypocrites anymore.

---

KAM BENFIELD

* * * * *

We would have a different and better world.

---

ANN TEMPLETON

* * * * *

Most of us would be stoned to death.

We have to be able to distinguish between what is cultural and what is biblical.

---

CYNTHIA GOUGH NANCE

* * * * *

For everyone who believes the Bible, they do take every word literally. One has to know how to put it in context. It is so sad that everyone does not believe the Bible because Jesus Christ is coming back as he promised. For those who laugh at this, it will be too late when they are convinced that God created all and has all power. The disturbing letters in the Journal tell me that that number could be huge, depending on choices.

---

LEE JOHNSON

* * * * *

The problem is not with the Bible, but with our limited ability to interpret it correctly.

---

DONALD R. CREWS

* * * * *

There would be several new reality shows for demonstrating the proper way to "stone thy neighbor." There could also be one with the folks from Greenpeace out searching to sink shrimp boats. The crabbing industry would become a black market gold mine! The possibilities are endless!

---

JEFF BANNER

* * * * *

Then everyone would believe in unicorns as per the King James version: Job 39:9, 10, Isaiah 34:7, and seven other places in the Bible. Women also wouldn't be talking while in church as per 1 Corinthians 14:34, presumably so they can spend the time thinking about unicorns.

---

D.H. LEWIS

"And the meek shall inherit the earth." If that were true we wouldn't have the 99 percent while the other 1 percent gets everything.

---

SUZANNE CARROLL

* * * * *

If one takes every verse of the Bible as the literal revealed word of God, one cannot help but be left with the impression that He has no moral qualms with slavery.

---

DAVID LERNER

* * * * *

If we were to take every passage of the Bible as inerrant, we run the risk of selective, out of context interpretation and end up missing the true message of God's word. Too many people turn the Bible from being a tool to show us the way and into a weapon to bludgeon those we disagree with. I suggest all who use the Bible to make any political point remember two of Jesus' teachings: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and his admonition for us to "remove the log from our own eye before we try and help someone with the speck in theirs."

---

KEN HOGLUND

* * * * *

I would settle for the one verse, "Love God with all your heart ... and your neighbor as yourself."

---

PETER VENABLE

* * * * *

Trying to take the Bible literally would make your head explode. No one actually does that. There are so many contradictions and inconsistencies, and so many differing translations. There is much in there we simply ignore. The faithful pick and choose and "interpret" and then call their choices literal.

Take a simple example, Deuteronomy 22:11, which in the King James Version says: "Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together." If you are wearing clothing typically sold in America you are likely in violation of a biblical decree because the cloth itself is a blend of "diverse sorts." Where is the furious and righteous cry for a return to God's decree against textile blends? There is great wisdom in the Bible, but if truly taken literally, crusading against spandex is where it gets you.

---

STEVE SCROGGIN

* * * * *

If we took every verse of the Bible literally, we would live in a different world. For instance, we could own slaves, and preference would be slaves from neighboring nations. I assume that would be Mexico or Canada (Leviticus 25:44). We could also sell our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7). If we have a neighbor working on the Sabbath (whatever day of the week that really is), I assume we would have to report him to the authorities, because he must be put to death (Exodus 35:2). This is just a sampling or how our lives might be different.

---

CHARLES FRANCIS WILSON

* * * * *

If everyone believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible, the world would be at peace, because men would be too tired to start wars after coming home to 700 wives.

---

RUDY DIAMOND

* * * * *

To begin with, it would be good if people read every verse of the Bible.

---

THE REV. LAURA SPANGLER

* * * * *

We should call ourselves the contemporary of Moses or Abraham.

---

BOON T. LEE

* * * * *

If you take every verse literally, you will be very misinformed. As any real student of the Bible knows, context is everything in understanding what it says. You have to know the whole Bible to understand what is literal and what is allegory.

---

RICHARD CHASE

* * * * *

That person would be lacking a basic understanding of the natural sciences, and utterly bereft of any common sense.

---

DAVE LASTER

* * * * *

If one took every verse in the Bible literally, we would not be voting on the marriage amendment. What God has said, He meant, whether we want to believe it or not. God will one day judge those who change His word to fit their own unholy lifestyles.

---

REID JOYCE

* * * * *

A big mess. Religion is the real cause of humanity's ills. Look at the religious right and Islam.

---

WILLIAM SAMS

* * * * *

I would invest in sleep-aid stocks.

---

WES PATTERSON