tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post8061339695639885669..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: Illinois Approves Gay Marriage By False Parallel Of RaceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-16565337779125721112013-12-22T20:04:29.998-06:002013-12-22T20:04:29.998-06:00https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZAfmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28668467083498821902013-12-22T20:01:14.214-06:002013-12-22T20:01:14.214-06:00@ Warren Manigault
You said "As you are free ...@ Warren Manigault<br />You said "As you are free to say, believe and do what you think is right, why is it WRONG for the Church, Marvin Winans or anyone else for that matter, to do the same?"<br /><br />I didn't say that. I'm pro freedom of speech. For everybody. If Marvin Winans holds that strip clubs are immoral and that he is against them, he has his right to teach his congregation such. He also has the right to publically state his opinion on the matter. But what he and the church must remember is, their opinions are not fact. And attempting to use the government to enforce your personal beliefs and opinions as if they are fact is wrong. I don't think any religion or non religion should be trying to use government to make others live how they think everyone ought to live. I don't think Marvin Winans should be trying to use government to shut down strip clubs because he thinks they're immoral, I don't think some Imam or Sheikh should be using government to ban the sell of pork or make women wear burquahs, I don't think some atheist group ought to be using the government to tell people they can't say "Merry Christmas", but instead have to say "Happy Holidays". Strip clubs are legal businesses. Period. Marvin Winans may not like it and that's his right. But it's wrong to get them closed down simply because he thinks they're immoral. He's not feeding the strip club owners or dancers, he isn't going to pay their bills, and he isn't going to provide them with clothes, food, shelter or luxuries they may be used to.<br /><br />You said "In reality, a man who frequents strip clubs will eventually bring harm to himself, his family by having his view of women twisted/warped. Continued exposure to stimuli that reduces women to objects of sexual fantasy, and feeds an inordinate desire for possessing/owning them will not result in the long run to 'no harm'. <br /><br />You're just making claims. Demonstrate these claims. Otherwise, you're committing the Slipper Slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. Furthermore, those men are adults. They don't need the church to tell them where they can and cannot go and how to spend their money.<br /><br />You said "Furthermore, many women who work as strippers are themselves troubled, abused and exploited by the very people who use them to make money. Those who 'employ' these women no doubt agree with your 'no harm' argument that I suppose in their minds more than 'justify' their actions."<br /><br />Again, your making another claim. Demonstrate it. This time, you're committing the argument from ignorance fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance. You're asserting that because you don't know of any other reasons a woman may dance at a strip club, it must be because the reasons you listed, while ignoring the possibility of any other reasons outside of those you listed.<br /><br />Furthermore, those women are adult women and don't need the church or Marvin Winans telling them "what's best for them". Especially when the church or Marvin Winans isn't putting a dime in those women's purses.<br /> fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-67304945577805899662013-12-22T19:29:07.682-06:002013-12-22T19:29:07.682-06:00@ Warren Manigault You said "I get so tired o...@ Warren Manigault You said "I get so tired of the attitude of those who say, "I don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society"<br /><br />You claim the God of the Bible is the "author of morality". Yet, you pick and choose to follow the parts of his morality you find convenient, yet you throw out the rest. You pay attention to the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Thou shalt not steal". Yet you conveniently forget about 2 Kings 2:24 where this author of morality sends two bears to kill 42 children for calling a prophet "baldy". If you agree God is the author of morality, then you have to agree that murdering children for name calling is moral.<br /><br />You conveniently forget about 2 Samuel 12:14-18 where God murders King David's baby for a crime committed by King David. If you agree that God is the author of morality, then you have to agree that murdering a baby for something his father did is moral.<br /><br />You conveniently forget about Leviticus 21:9 where God orders a priests daughter to be burned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night (other women who were not priests daughters were to be stoned to death at their fathers door).<br /><br />You conveniently forget about Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21 where the author of morality specifically sanctions slavery and even goes so far to tell you how to beat your slaves and if they don't immediately die but "linger for a day or 2" and then die, then the owner is not to be punished. If you agree God is the author of morality, then you must agree that slavery is moral.<br /><br />Yet, I don't think you really believe any of that is moral. I don't think you believe sending bears to kill children for name calling is moral, I don't think you believe animal sacrifice is moral, I don't think you believe killing a baby for his father's crime is moral, I don't think you believe killing young women for not being virgins on their wedding night is moral and I don't think you believe slavery is moral.<br /><br />Of course you're going to excuse it by saying "thats the old testament" or "we're not under the law anymore". It doesn't matter. In Hebrews 13:8 it explicitly states that Jesus Christ (whom you agree is God) is unchanging. So even if he doesn't require the law anymore, if he thought killing children was moral 3,000 years ago he still thinks it's moral today. If he thought killing women for not being virgins on their wedding night was moral 3,000 years ago, he still thinks it's moral today.<br /><br />What's changed is secular morality. It isn't because of the bible that you believe killing a baby for his fathers crimes is immoral or killing a young woman for not being a virgin is immoral (I guarantee, if you have a teenage daughter and you find out she has had sex, you're not going to murder her for it, yet in the bible, she was to be stoned to death at your doorstep and YOU had to participate). It's secular morality that tells you those things are wrong.<br /><br />Secular morality doesn't stand for animal sacrifice, killing children for name calling, killing young women for not being virgins, and killing babies on account of their parents actions. That's the bible. So if you insist on saying God is the "author of morality" take it or leave it. But don't pick and choose what you want to follow. You cannot judge God's good actions and not judge his bad actions.<br /><br />fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28027188805653168112013-12-22T18:53:51.881-06:002013-12-22T18:53:51.881-06:00@ warren manigault You said "The explanation ...@ warren manigault You said "The explanation for the same sex attraction according to the Bible is SIN"<br /><br />May I ask you, where did that sin come from in the 1st place??? According to christian theology, Adam and Eve were put in the midst of a magical garden where everything was perfect. But that wasn't enough, God put a tree in the middle of the garden and ordered them not to eat from it. And to make matters worse he made the fruit "pleasing to the eye" as if to purposely tempt them. On top of that, he let loose a serpent possessed by Satan into the garden in order for Satan to trick Adam and Eve into eating the fruit. Keep in mind, God is supposedly omniscient so he knew exactly what would happen. Adam and Eve were set up by God. So the serpent talks Eve into eating the fruit and while the serpent is talking to Eve, does God rebuke him and chastise him for attempting to fool Eve. No, he stands back and watches.<br /><br />So finally they eat the fruit. And God jumps out from behind the bushes and says "Ha I got you!" Now by virtue of his omniscience he knew all this would occur and one can logically conclude that he set up the whole situation as a reason to be able to introduce sin into the world in the 1st place. Furthermore, since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, how could they have known it was wrong to disobey God and how could they differentiate between truth and deception? Also, it isn't just to punish someone for being deceived anyway. A person being deceived usually doesn't know it and think they AREN"T being deceived.<br /><br />So, what happens next is more shocking. Instead of just punishing the players, Adam, Eve and the serpent, God punishes all of humanity by cursing them with a sin nature and he curses all serpents by forcing them to "crawl on their bellies". Please, explain to me the justification of punishing billions of others, humans and animals alike, for something they didn't do! Out of what necessity did God have to curse everyone and everything with a sin nature? I'll answer for you, there was no necessity. God did so arbitrarily solely because he wanted to.<br /><br />God is responsible for sin.<br /><br />If you hold that God personally creates every human being and every animal that lives, has lived, or will live then the sin nature goes back to him. There is no reason at all that God cannot create a human being without sin. Instead, by his own wishes, he creates his earthly creatures with a sin nature and then he arbitrarily creates rules contrary to the nature he creates them with. It's the ultimate case of look but don't touch, taste but don't swallow, touch but don't taste. The only reason humans have a sin nature is because God arbitrarily said it had to be so and decided to punish all of mankind for a "crime" they did not commit. fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-12302501562930378222013-12-13T10:06:43.496-06:002013-12-13T10:06:43.496-06:00@ FM,
Finally your comment about frequenting a st...@ FM,<br /><br />Finally your comment about frequenting a strip club comes across to me as a bit naive and devoid of the reality of what is taking place in this situation. In reality, a man who frequents strip clubs will eventually bring harm to himself, his family by having his view of women twisted/warped. Continued exposure to stimuli that reduces women to objects of sexual fantasy, and feeds an inordinate desire for possessing/owning them will not result in the long run to 'no harm'. <br /> <br />Furthermore, many women who work as strippers are themselves troubled, abused and exploited by the very people who use them to make money. Those who 'employ' these women no doubt agree with your 'no harm' argument that I suppose in their minds more than 'justify' their actions. I think that you are wrong to defend/justify what they do. <br /><br />It is becoming very clear to me that we live in a world where 'offending' someone is a more grievous sin than simply telling them the truth.<br />Warren Manigaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840013009088198468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-48979794443134632462013-12-13T10:04:44.813-06:002013-12-13T10:04:44.813-06:00The poster asks, “How do you explain a woman who f...The poster asks, “How do you explain a woman who from a little girl was masculine and like to dress up like a boy and do typical 'boy' activities, and who just never had any feelings towards men, but only towards women?" And also said this, “If people who are heterosexual were born as such, and didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then that same line of reasoning can be applied to homosexuals." The explanation for the same sex attraction according to the Bible is SIN. It is the same reason that some people cannot control their sexual desires whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. It is the same reason why some people cannot control their use of alcohol or drugs. It is the same reason that some people are prone to violence and mayhem. We were ALL born this way. We are all born sinners with the inability to do the things that are right without God. <br /><br /> Any argument that uses this as a premise is trying to avoid the obvious. It doesn't matter how you were born, if you accept the provision of Salvation that God has provided through the Lord Jesus Christ, you can be born again. You can be made new, and you can be free from the bonds and chains of sin. Including the sin that is homosexuality. It is a cop out to try and play the 'born this way' card as an excuse for our sinfulness. There some indication that a person can be genetically predisposed to violence, and to being a drunk or drug abuser. That doesn't mean we should encourage them and affirm them in this condition. We would and should encourage them to resist their inclinations and to seek God's help in overcoming these things. <br /><br />I get so tired of the attitude of those who say, "I don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society". First of all the Church isn't 'forcing' anybody. The last time I checked the record being a member of the Christian Church is entirely 'voluntary'. You can choose not to belong and therefore not be exposed to ideas a mores that you find unacceptable. But to call for the Church to conform to your way of thinking is the very narrow-minded attitude that you accuse the Church of having. As you are free to say, believe and do what you think is right, why is it WRONG for the Church, Marvin Winans or anyone else for that matter, to do the same? You are being very hypocritical in this regard. Since you are on record in believing in an 'subjective morality', you are the last person who should tell anybody that they are 'wrong'. You feel free to divide morality into subjective and objective with your own definition of what is immoral or not. And when we refuse to accept your standard of right an wrong you object? Really? I will stick with the Creator's definition if you don't mind. For Christians the Word of God is our standard for morality (right and wrong). This God given standard is not determined by our world view or by our feelings. It is an absolute standard, and not one that is up for modification, or repeal because we don't agree or like what it is saying. Warren Manigaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840013009088198468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-1109287901854449782013-11-24T09:38:35.957-06:002013-11-24T09:38:35.957-06:00As far as same sex marriage goes, I think that as ...As far as same sex marriage goes, I think that as long as marriage is being defined as a secular contract between 2 people, then gays should be able to get married. However, I don't think churches or other religious institutions which are religiously convicted against same sex marriage should be forced to bless such unions. That is interfering with churches right of freedom of worship, by forcing them to do something contrary to their religious convictions.<br /><br />I grew up in COGIC, which taught that no one is born gay and that it is always a choice. And because of what I was taught in church, I never questioned it. I later knew that if I wanted to be intellectually honest, I would have to acknowledge that some are indeed born that way. If people who are heterosexual were born as such, and didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then that same line of reasoning can be applied to homosexuals. And when I realized that I couldn't defend the position that heterosexuals are born as such, but gays are not, without resorting to logical fallacies such as special pleading, then I had to look differently at the situation.<br /><br />I mean, how do you explain a woman who from a little girl was masculine and like to dress up like a boy and do typical "boy" activities, and who just never had any feelings towards men, but only towards women? I don't think it's fair to say she is making a conscious decision to like other women and act masculine and that she could change "if she wants to". Being a straight man, can you will yourself to like other men and want to start wearing skirts and stiletto heels? Of course not. You have to admit that she may have indeed been born a lesbian. Sexuality can be influenced by environment as well. I was watching a prison documentary where a man who had a 20 to life sentence was being interviewed. He said when he was on the streets, he could never think about being with a man, but after "all these long, lonely years, without a woman to stand by my side, I can definitely see being with another man".<br /><br />I also don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society, anymore than I think Islam or Hinduism should be doing it. I think the church trying to prevent people doing what they want, simply because the church believes it's immoral is the wrong thing to do. Why should adults be forced to live as the church sees fit? In the city I live, a couple years ago, Marvin Winans was trying to get the city council to pass stringent restrictions on strip clubs, with the idea of getting them closed down. There is reason to believe that Marvin Winans is opposed to strip clubs, because he believes they are immoral.<br /><br />However, issues like gay marriage and strip clubs are issues of subjective morality. Depending on your world view, those things may or may not be immoral. Things like murder or stealing from others are objective morality, because those things involve inflicting harm on others. A man going to a strip club isn't harming anyone and he has a legal right to be there. The people who run it are running a legal business, the girls who work there have every right to work there if the management lets them. So it's not fair for Marvin Winans to push his view of what's right and wrong on everyone else, when they may not subscribe to his version of morality. And the same goes for gay marriage.fmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13759116863929766807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-70950467764898969032013-11-09T11:20:49.126-06:002013-11-09T11:20:49.126-06:00Pastor Harvey Burnett you are a voice crying out i...Pastor Harvey Burnett you are a voice crying out in the wilderness. I pray more than the trees and animals are listening.LizNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01796357215601084615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-81295301966884873572013-11-09T11:01:29.554-06:002013-11-09T11:01:29.554-06:00This sounds like a "Form Letter." Just ...This sounds like a "Form Letter." Just type in the concern and add a name. Preferably the first name, it's more "personable and pal-zie.:<br /><br />"Dear (fill in the blank)<br /><br />Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns about (fill in the blank) in Illinois. Your message has been reviewed by my staff. I value your feedback and appreciate the insight you have shared with me. Each day, as I make decisions, I take your opinion, and those of others who write and call my office, into careful consideration.<br /><br />As Governor, it is always helpful to hear from residents about the issues concerning our state. Throughout my time in office, I have admired people like you who take time to provide ideas, ask questions and offer constructive criticisms. With your continued participation in our democracy, we can make the will of the people the law of the land.<br /><br />Thank you again for expressing your interest in (fill in the blank). Please feel free to contact me in the future. My office phone numbers are (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. You can also stay updated on state programs and services by subscribing to my E-Newsletter by clicking here.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Pat Quinn (STRANGE THAT HE DIDN'T SIGN IT AS JUST "PAT")<br />Governor<br /><br />This is so sad. It didn't even reach his desk. No one really cared.LizNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01796357215601084615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-48398672020748554922013-11-08T19:53:00.992-06:002013-11-08T19:53:00.992-06:00I sent this article along with others I had writte...I sent this article along with others I had written to some of the individuals featured in the article and Illinois Honorable Governor Pat Quinn. This is what I got back:<br /><br />Response from the Governor's office:<br /><br /><i>"Dear HARVEY,<br /><br />Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns about same-sex marriage in Illinois. Your message has been reviewed by my staff. I value your feedback and appreciate the insight you have shared with me. Each day, as I make decisions, I take your opinion, and those of others who write and call my office, into careful consideration.<br /><br />As Governor, it is always helpful to hear from residents about the issues concerning our state. Throughout my time in office, I have admired people like you who take time to provide ideas, ask questions and offer constructive criticisms. With your continued participation in our democracy, we can make the will of the people the law of the land. <br /><br />Thank you again for expressing your interest in same-sex marriage. Please feel free to contact me in the future. My office phone numbers are (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. You can also stay updated on state programs and services by subscribing to my E-Newsletter by clicking here.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Pat Quinn<br />Governor"</i><br /><br />Most people would be happy right? He wrote back or had someone write back right? Well I wrote him and addressed him as "Governor Quinn" from "PASTOR" Harvey Burnett...he writes me back as "HARVEY"....That tells me all I need to know!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-75556189486377366722013-11-08T07:07:15.312-06:002013-11-08T07:07:15.312-06:00From those who have examined the details of the la...From those who have examined the details of the law, the Illinois approval of gay marriage is the WORST approval yet of the 15 for religious freedoms. <br /><br />Tired of these late night political ram rods down the throats of the citizens. It is sad and they ought to be ashamed. If this is honorable, place the issue on the table before the people instead of seducing weak minded and vote centered politicians who think they would be better off. Let the PEOPLE speak on the issue. If they approve gay marriage, then I as a citizen would at least feel better about my freedom and voice being in tact. <br /><br />Don't forget this article:<a href="http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2012/05/sexuality-moral-issue-not-issue-of_16.html" rel="nofollow">THIS ARTICLE</a> There are compelling reasons why homosexual marriage should be rejected. <br /><br />District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.com