How does he square this comment with the command Thou Shalt Not Lie?

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Dr. Land.

Yet this is another egregious lie from what is supposedly a man devoted to Biblical principles.  From the self appointed ETHICS commission.  I thought misleading people for your own agenda is considered UNETHICAL.  How do you square this with your own beliefs?

  Sexual orientation INCLUDES EVERYONE.  It means if someone beat up someone BECAUSE they thought they were heterosexual, that would be a hate crime.  Now I can’t see how that makes anyone a special protected class of person since it includes EVERYONE.  This is a red herring.

Can you say Homosexuality is a sin?  - yes of course.  You can say eating shrimp is a sin -Leviticus 11:9-12 NCV.  There is a provision in the bill that would allow anti-gay groups to denounce gays and homosexuality through verbal messages.

If you think Homosexuality is a sin go out and preach it everyday and I will be there to support your right to say such things, but don’t stone homosexuals.  After all we don’t want to be the ones picking up the first stone - someone said that, right?

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

It is not the duty of our civil authorities to promote one religious view or another.

See you in heaven!!!!!

How very presumptuous to assume that one “accepts” Jesus.  That’s just weird talk.

What I do, Andre,  on the whole sin thing is I mainly am concerned with my own sin, not so much the sin of others.  I can’t find any passages in the Bible that say I should spend a lot of time evaluating whether or not somebody else is sinning.  What I do read about is the mandate to protect those who are vulnerable as gay men,  lesbians, and transsexual people are… mainly because of guys like you, I might add.  So, unless you are a gay man, a lesbian, or so some way differently gendered, I don’t see why you are so all fired worried about it.  After all, you don’t see me worried about your bad theology.

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

I’m kinda puzzled the statement you just made, perhaps you may provide clarification.

In your above comment, you said,

“What I do, Andre, on the whole sin thing is I mainly am concerned with my own sin, not so much the sin of others.  I can’t find any passages in the Bible that say I should spend a lot of time evaluating whether or not somebody else is sinning. “

Yet on another thread you also said,

“Maybe if you Baptists would stop desecrating and overpopulating it you could actually live into that little commandment.”

And then followed that up with,

“Where do you get off discerning the motives of others…I just think your story is pretty weak… along with your morals.”

Based on those statements, it seems that you have indeed found much to concern yourself with “the sin of others” (your words), at least on these threads.

If the latter 2 statements are not contradictory with the 1st, then I apologize. Like I said, I’m kinda puzzled, so perhaps I’m wrong. :-)

Only 1000 characters allowed so forgive me for being short:

I read Al Mohler’s blog and The Baptist Standard regularly so I know that Baptists are anti-science and pro-procreation.  Anyone want to argue with that? It is plenty evident to me.

I am not just guessing about these things.  I’ve read them in Baptist publications and on Baptist blogs. 

You didn’t have any evidence for your assertions.  And that is the difference between me and you.  I don’t make up things about people and say them whenever it suits my fancy.  You are the one who appears to do that.  There’s a little commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor, you may remember it?

Hope you had fun!

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

Yet there was a time when women and persons of color were treated as if they were dirty sinners (menstruating women not being allowed the sacrament, slavery) The church saw the error of her ways on those issues.

There is just no credible scriptural prohibition on homosexuality. 

The whole cult of Biblical literalism/inerrancy has made the Bible into a mere book of stories which, from time-to-time, when we pick and choose them correctly, may inform our theology. 

I have a much higher view of scripture.  I believe it is a theology book, written in the theological language of its time.  The reason God gave me a mind is so that I can translate first century theological writing into twenty-first century theology.  The stories don’t have to be historical or scientific to be theologically true.  And, in searching for the truth, the theological truth, in the scriptures.  I find no prohibition on homosexuality. 

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

I’m not sure it’s fun I seek, just clarification.

I still contend that I have provided the evidence of my confusion that you’ve yet to reconcile: You clearly stated that you don’t “concern” yourself with other people’s sins, yet you vocally criticize Baptists (and other thread guests) for breaking “commandments” and “weak morals.” (your words)

Honestly, I’m just seeking explanation as to how your posts are not contradictory with themselves. Please note that, thus far, I have not disputed your assertions.  I simply asked how you can criticize others for what you clearly believe are sins and at the same time claim you that don’t concern yourself with other people’s sins.

Still puzzled,

mh

Frank Finley
Louisville, Kentucky

Linda, you mentioned,

“when we pick and choose them correctly, may inform our theology.”

My immediate question is this: (to Linda or to anyone else who agrees with her on this) by what process do you “pick and choose” what Scriptures inform your theology and which do not?

A fair question, don’t you think?

P.S. RE: “The whole cult of Biblical literalism/inerrancy…” I really don’t wish to get off topic, but I’m pretty sure that, even by a purely academic definition, “Biblical literalism/inerrancy” would not be considered a ‘cult’ view within Christian circles. Quite the opposite, I’m fairly confident its the orthodox (with a little ‘o’) view in Christianity. Now, if you believe this view of Scripture to be wrong, then by all means argue your case (ie, ‘higher criticism’).  But to call describe it as a ‘cult’ is simply inaccurate.

Matt(15) and Mark (16)...Just keep thinking about it.

Matt(17) I try not to pick and choose.  What I said, if you will please read the entire sentence, is that a literalistic/inerrantist interpretation sometimes gives way to picking and choosing and regarding the Bible as a mere story book.

Perhaps it is not a “cult.” I’ll give you that one. But, it’s [****] close.

Linda McMillan

MODERATOR’S NOTE: The above [****] indicates the use of language that the ERLC deems unacceptable on its threads. (See the very bottom of this page.) Normally, the use of any unacceptable language provides a one-way ticket to the trash bin without the chance of editing. The Moderator has allowed the comment to pass in this rare case, with the noted edit.

Are you saying that your Bible doesn’t demand that you care for the vulnerable?

If so, you are right.  We ARE reading from a different Bible.

Linda McMillan

Your question isn’t even worth responding to.  However, I do believe we are reading from different Bibles, or at least with different spiritual interpreters.

Frank Finley

I do not believe that the book that you can purchase is the true word of god.  It has overtures to the word of god but it has been translated, retranslated, books and passages removed and changed to suit ‘editors’ at the time, and even in its original form was written by men who were trying to write for their times.  Who can claim that they truly understand god?

Leviticus is a great example. Why is eating shrimp a sin?  Because at the time they did not have proper food preparation and you could die.  Yet we do not protest Red Lobster as a house of sin today.  Likewise, the ‘sins of sex’ was based on the desire to have as many children as possible.  With short life expectancy and the war/farming based existence, having lots of children was important for survival – not an issue we have in modern America (300 Million).  Does god hate homosexuals or 3,000 years ago WE needed to have everyone making kids? 

PS I know how to read -lol

I know that these comments are more about getting our points out then a true dialogue.

The fundamental question in my mind is does government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.  One of the great things about America is that we protect the “outsiders” those that do not conform.  Think of all the people and ideas that made America great and how they went against the crowd.  Founding fathers – democracy.  Heck Christianity is pretty radical – love your fellow man, turn the other cheek. 

My original thesis is there are crimes out there that are more than just an attack on an individual.  If you believe this is true as I do – feel free to Google if you are not sure.  Then the next question is should society do something about it regardless if its blacks, women, Baptists, or homosexuals? Again I think it is in the BEST interest of the country to protect its citizens.  “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother this you do unto me”

A Red Herring is the logical fallacy when any argument in which a premise is logically irrelevant to the conclusion.  Which premise of Dr. Land’s do you see as being logically irrelevant to Dr. Land’s conclusion?  Also, what do you perceive Dr. Land’s conclusion to be?

deviant- (adj.) Differing or deviating from accepted moral or social standards.

Dear Rob Chambers, that statement is a red herring.  You must commit a violent crime to be punished for doing so, simply wishing or thinking ill of another is not a crime. 

Dan Valdes

However, reality is…

But that’s not quite true Brain, so you might want to check out the latest science of human sexuality before making such broad assertions. 

Check out this volume to start
Biological Substrates of Human Sexuality
Hyde, Janet Shibley

I hate to contradict you but there are several scientific studies that try to determine if it is genetic for humans to be homosexual.  I suggest you do more research on the subject. One place to start is http://www.libertyeducationforum.org/

As for unnatural, there have been several studies that show many animals (created by God and without the sins of man) demonstrate homosexual behavior feel free to look it up.

Debate seems to be evolving to “sure there are homosexuals but they can live a heterosexual life if they chose too”  Now that is true.  I don’t believe that gays can really change but they can live the life as a heterosexual – think of actors playing a role. 

Think about why you want to have physical contact with another and what you want to do with them.  Write it down on a piece of paper.  There is NO WAY you would do that if you did not have “chemistry”.  I don’t think you chose to want to do it but you do get a chose if you act on those desires.

Since you have already made up your mind, why should I bother answering you?  Why did you even ask the question?

I have a question for you, though:  When did you decide to become a heterosexual?  If it’s a mere matter of choice then one should be able to choose either way, right?  Since you intimate that we are all capable of choosing to be either gay or straight, why did you choose straight?

Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas

As for you definition of deviant, try again buddy, 100 years ago a black person marrying a white person was forbidden by law, black people were OWNED by white people.

You people have no sense whatsoever when trying to argue this point.  Your bigotry and homophobia is clear and too bad you have to deal with homosexuals for the rest of your life.  Get used to it.