roger that...
Posted on 08/16/2009 7:57:54 PM PDT by TomTGradeczek
A Comment about Gays in the US Military and Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I had a few communications with Gen'l P. Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time) and received a very nice response (I believe hand signed) mentioning the input I gave him about the topic of Gays in the Military. Someday I will have that letter framed as memorabilia.
Let me begin by saying that as one of the most disciplined, soldier's soldier, there ever was, Gen'l Pace has officially never mentioned his actual opinion about homosexuality, in a way suggesting that any policy he has ever suggested, was influenced by his personal opinions. Any of us may think, I repeat, ... Think, we know exactly what is in Gen'l Pace's mind, but I am not a mind reader, and won't pretend to be.
Clearly the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was very troubling to Gen'l Pace when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It wasted allot of his time. A few things I do know;
Gen'l Pace believe it was the duty of EVERY American (Gay or not) to join the military, fight, and perhaps die, protecting the country, the freedoms and the structure of America. He also believed that he was the director and protector of every person in uniform. Finally, he was stuck with a policy (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) when he took his office, and in the face of gay advocates in the military asking that they bve allowed to declare their gay status while soldiering, he had a dilemma.
If Gen't Pace Ever Allowed Gays in the Military to declare their Gay Status Openly, That would be the last time that gay persons could ever be in the current US military, and likely the last time ANY Gay person could be in the US military.
Once I explained the logic of this situation to him, he sent a very nice letter to me, thanking me. You would think that the Joint Chief of Staff would have a political logician on staff, but I don't think so.
The question is, if it were legal for gays in the military to declare their gay status, why would that eliminate all gays from the US military? The answer is simple, and logical. Right now, in order to preserve the dignity of military service people, and protect their self-respect, men and women are not mixed in the military. Although certain exhibitionist women or men might enjoy parading around naked in open barracks, or in communal showers, in front of members of the opposite sex (OR THE OPPOSITE SEXUALITY), it is military policy that women cannot be forced to undress and be naked in front of men in open tents, barracks and in communal showers (which means with naked men).
The reason why women are not forced to be naked changing clothes in open, group tents, barracks, or communal showers is to preserve the privateness of women who AS Women, would be viewed by some men as the objects of their sexual desires and interests. No matter how gentlemanly, or disciplined the men in the barracks, tents or communal showers would be, in the presence of naked women, it is considered a strike against the dignity of women to force them to expose their naked bodies to the view of heterosexual men in open, group barracks, or communal showers.
Why this impacts gays in the military, and why attempts by gay military personnel to be allowed to proclaim openly that they are gay, IS SO MISGUIDED, is because the first time gay men are allowed to openly proclaim they are gay, then a gigantic group of heterosexual male, military personnel, would be able to successfully sue to be separated from any gay male, who by the declaration of their gayness, would also be declaring that they find male bodies the object of their sexual desires.
So imagine this; Gays win the right to proclaim their gay status in the military, the next day heterosexual men (the majority in the military) sue to be separated from any gay male who would view a heterosexual male in a sexual way, and then we have 4 groups in the military, all separated; gay females, and heterosexual females, gay males and heterosexual males. The cost of supporting completely separate platoons in open tent and barrack conditions, completely separate showers, etc. would mean we would basically have a gay and heterosexual military at that point, AND THAT Would be the end of ANY gay military personnel who came out and declared their gay status (although gays might be allowed to stay stateside doing support functions). The costs involved would be deemed so high, gays would be forced out of any front line participation (although their might be a token Coast Guard cutter or two fully manned by gays, (joke)).
Clearly heterosexual males in the military have rights equal to females in the military. This is an issue of basic rights to protect one's dignity and self respect. I guess if all women in the military were forced into mixed units requiring them to be naked in open tents and barracks, and communal showers, then it would be hard for heterosexual men to argue they don't want to have their bodies viewed by gay men as possible objects of sexual interest. But That's Never Going To Happen (except maybe in Israel).
So this was a conflict for Gen'l Pace. He felt it was a duty of ALL Americans to serve in the US military in times of need, possibly fight, and possibly even die, protecting our freedoms and culture. But if gays were allowed to declare their gayness openly, that would effectively eliminate gays from the military in short order. Gen'l Pace tip-toed around this issue, although it plagued him during his tenure as Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff. But you'd think NPR and others who did stories promoting gay openness in the military, would have understood they would be eliminating gays in the military if this openness ever happened.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell has never been openly explained to the American public. I'm surprised this kind of logic isn't being used when there are news stories about this issue. Extreme conservatism about gays and the US military might be better served by explanations at times, instead of simply screaming about how gayness is against some pundit's personal feelings or religious beliefs. It might better serve America, to make a case that is logical and bullet-proof.
Thank you
TomTGradeczek, author of Waiting For John Doe (Number Two), (how a former Hitler Youth successfully arranged mass murder through a terrorist attack on Oklahoma and America)
tomtgradeczek@lycos.com
Interesting. Welcome to FR and thanks for your post.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Perverts pervert everything, It’s what they are and what they do.
Nice tagline! :0)
;-)
Thank you for the post and Welcome to FR.
There are a large number of active, former and retired military who are members here. This has been an occasional topic of comment.
having served then there is no way I would ever want this, nor do any of my military friends
has this admin actually done anything or said anything which most Americans want?
everything it seems is a slap in the face to this country.
greetings
Why, why, why has everyone caved in to this Orwellian doublethink of referring to sodomites as “gay?” Even here, where people really ought to know better.
Ping
I was in the Army, when don’t ask, don’t tell went into effect. Nobody liked it, including myself. However, it has worked well.
The Messiah will be under a lot of pressure to undo it, in the next few months. I can’t imagine the chaos.
The examples given are valid. At West Point, all but one of the barracks had large communal showers. Many times in the field, we would be herded through a shower facility like cattle.
At the national training center, there were communal showers, and no dividers between the toilets. I really wouldn’t want to soap up in front of Corporal Cupcake or Major Hard-on.
LOL. Religions do just fine corrupting themselves.
In My experience, when someone wants to change a name of something, its due to shame.
Shame leads to lying.
Lying leads to fear.
Fear leads to panic.
Panic leads to aggressiveness.
Aggressiveness leads to attacking everything.
Help them out. Call them by their rightful name so the shame hits them square between the eyes.
God gave us shame. He gave us righteous rage as well.
These are both useful tools at times. Problem with folks wanting to change the word to describe their sin is that they want to ignore or even “trick” God.
God will not be ignored, nor will he be mocked. He cant be tricked.
God loves the sin and hates the sinner.
Sodomy is no better or worse than greed, lust or violence.
Its all sin.
They just dont want to admit it and being PC about it aint helping them.
Because there will be a time when they will be too far gone and their hearts will be too hardened against God to come to him.
That will be a sad day for them indeed.
LOL!
Amen to that.
What one needs to remember is that religions are full of people.
People have mouths.
Things progress badly from there.
Luckily- If you are really christian, its not religion. Its relationship with Christ.
Even then, we run into trouble now and again ( because we still have mouths)
;0-)
Caption this.....
Filthy disease ridden queer....Uncle Sam does not want you!
remember those days?
I once spoke to a Korean war vet who said that there were FDRQ’s in the Army back then. I said “really?” he said oh yes! It was known but not talked about. He said there was FDRQ’s in WWII as well. He said this thing about queers being in the Army is nothing new. I am not sure why then they were not kicked out. I guess we were at war and they were used/wanted/needed. Who knows?
Such a lawsuit would be laughed out of court. You do not have the right to not be found sexually attractive.
UGH! I didn’t need that this early in the AM......
So does that mean women would be okay being exposed to the view of homosexual men, who presumably don't have sexual desires towards them?
If that is the case, a lot more men would sign up as homosexuals in order to get consigned to women's shower facilities.
General Peter Pace was a Marine, not a soldier.
If you fancy yourself a commentator instead of just another gumflapper, get your facts straight.
Please excuse my attempt to cut back on typing characters. Pres George W. Bush also referred to Gen'l Pace as a "soldier" and it didn't cause the General to correct him. I'll try to avoid typos that thin-skinned people have trouble with in future. My, my, what an unusually sensitive group we find on Free Republic. I'm surprised.
thank you
TomTGradeczek, author of Waiting For John Doe (Number Two), (how a former Hitler Youth successfully arranged mass murder through a terrorist attack on Oklahoma and America)
Democrats won't explain it because it's counter to their agenda. The media is in the pocket of the Democrats. And Republicans won't explain it because they are afraid of being attacked by the Dems and media for being insensitive an homophobic.(IOW, cowardly)
The only real difference between 2 military persons, male or female, who are roughly the same size, and with similar skills and strength, is that they are sexually different. It is the sexuality difference, that causes the separation of men and women in the military, not "average" strength differences etc. This is exactly the difference that would be highlighted, if gays were ever allowed to openly express their homosexuality in the military.
TomTGradeczek, tomtgradeczek@lycos.com, author of Waiting For John Doe (Number Two), (how a former Hitler Youth successfully arranged mass murder through a terrorist attack on Oklahoma and America).
“God loves the sin and hates the sinner.”
Excuse me?
“Sodomy is no better or worse than greed, lust or violence.”
Utter nonsense. Just as murder is worse than jaywalking, the abomination of sodomy is far, far worse than many other sins. Not the worst, according to Scripture, but much worse than many others.
roger that...
I respectfully and humbly disagree. Except for the loves the sin and hates the sinner part- that was a VERY bad typo on my part— thats what happens when I drive by post on my way into the house :-)
IT should have read, obviously “ God hates the sin and Loves the sinner”
Scripture makes it clear that we all fall short of the kingdom of heaven.
Sin is sin brother.
To believe any other way just invites some great idolatry moments.
Having said that, all sin is bad. Bad enough to keep us out of relationship with God if we dont repent.
You may think its worse and thats your opinion. Heck- I probably even agree with you. But once you start thinking your sin is BETTER than someone elses sin, you start getting into Gods territory.
Let me know where you have some scripture to back up your statements. I’d be interested to see it.
God Bless-
“Scripture makes it clear that we all fall short of the kingdom of heaven.”
Of course.
“Sin is sin brother.”
You have a very low opinion of God. You don’t think He is discerning enough to see gradations in severity that are apparent even to mortal man.
“To believe any other way just invites some great idolatry moments.”
That doesn’t even make sense.
“Having said that, all sin is bad. Bad enough to keep us out of relationship with God if we dont repent.”
Well no. Some sins are not severe enough to separate us from God. Others are that severe.
“You may think its worse and thats your opinion.”
No, it most certainly is not “my opinion.” It is the position arrived at by 2000 years of civilization’s greatest minds and holiest men, guided by the Holy Spirit.
That’s what you’re contending with; not just some poster on the Internet.
“But once you start thinking your sin is BETTER than someone elses sin, you start getting into Gods territory.”
I don’t know anyone so cognatively impaired as to think in that way.
“Let me know where you have some scripture to back up your statements. I’d be interested to see it.”
I’m betting that you’ve already seen it, and have misinterpreted it to mean something else. As it is well known that you cannot reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into in the first place, I’m not going to try.
Wow.
I think you and I disagree on a couple of things.
“You have a very low opinion of God. You don’t think He is discerning enough to see gradations in severity that are apparent even to mortal man.”
Name a sin that doesn’t separate us from God. - I’d be interested in that one.
Then, name a Sin that God wont forgive. I know theres a lot of things I cant forgive, but God is God- He can do it all.
I have the highest of all opinions of God. He’s, well. God. He can discern anything he sees fit to discern. However, his word states that its our sin that separates us from God. Not our really, really bad sin whiel the only kindve sins get a pass.
Sin is Sin.
As for the great idolotry moments comment that you didn’t understand, perhaps I can say it better this way.
When we look at anothers sin ( regardless of what it is) and think its worse than our own, we start to place ourselves higher than another. God has basically told us that we are all falling short of his glory. There’s no “ my sin wasn’t as bad as his sin” - its Sin. Idolotry in this instance is worshipping yourself as being better than someone else as well as disregarding what God is saying. Adam and Eve got tossed out of the garden for stealing eating an apple ( and lying in the process) - this started the whole sin problem. Lying to God.
God is perfect good. We aren’t. We show it in a TON of ways. Sin separates us. plain and simple- repentance reinstates us. Not saying the words but truly acting repentant.
As for the 2000 years of civilizations greatest minds and holiest men, please list some references to scripture that supports your point, Otherwise, you’re adding or subtracting from scripture. Perhaps you don’t need to reason me out of a position. Perhaps I’ve just missed something.
I thought perhaps I had not been aware of some weird morphing going on in the US military services. So I enlisted the aid of 2 buddies, who had military careers as officers in the US Navy and US Air Force (in their 60s like me), 2 very nice young ladies (in their 30s now) who had put in time in the US Army and US Air Force as an Army nurse, and an Aircraft Maintenance Technician, and the Asst Mngr at my local supermarket (also in her 30s). I printed out copies of the comment below and let them read them (over coffee for us old farts), over a couple of beers for the young ladies, who were former US service personnel), and during a quiet moment at the supermarket for the Asst Mngr.
As my two career military buddies read The_Repugnant_Conservative's comment, they started laughing so hard one of them nearly choked on his coffee. Both of them wondered if the Repugnant Conservative had served in the US military (or even lived near a big city in the US) during the last 30 years. After calm settled over us, they both volunteered that male US military service personnel seem to not only enjoy looking at naked women or dreaming about naked women, they went out of their way to look at naked women, including the women in their own duty groups.
One of my buddies suggested The_Repugnant_Conservative should go to the nudie bars, pole dancing clubs, or lap dancing joints near the San Diego Naval Air Station to get a look at military servicemen staring slack-jawed at as many naked women as possible, before they even start on their beers. They both thought that sometimes these young men, high on testosterone, could think of nothing but naked women. It would get especially pertinent when men would discuss (and rate) the women they worked along side as far as whether so-and-so's rack was an 8 or an 8.5. etc. etc.
On the other hand they could not think of too many service women who frequented Chippendale style clubs with male strippers, except for initiations and rare parties. My buddies said that not only were the service women in their commands much less likely to spend too much time looking for ways to view men naked (especially when you consider all the young beefcake they had working right near them), they generalized by saying that there were quite a few complaints from service women about how degrading it was that men discuss them as naked sex objects.
Something I didn't realize was that there were probably more gay clubs available (and rumored to be frequented) by servicemen, where it was common to have a variety of naked men in the clubs. Of course there is nothing illegal about a sailor or airman going to a club catering to gay men, but when the rumors about any serviceman in particular get too frequent, disciplinary actions have been taken and some clubs have been made off-limits. So, I have been missing something being out of the military all these years.
Suffice it to say, both my career military buddies thought the Repugnant Conservative had to be joking with me.
Later last evening my Air Force buddy called and reminded me of a near scandal that occurred years ago (pre-Gulf War 1). There was a squadron that had quite a few requests for transfer, both out and in. The duty record of this squadron was exemplary, but a large number of complaints were registered by airmen who would take a transfer to Greenland rather than stay in their current squadron. The problem was that there were no official complaints being recorded by the squadron and base commander (both of whom would need to sign off on requests for transfer). It turned out there was about 8% gay men in the squadron, and other men who may have been gay kept trying to get transferred into this air base. There was a major re-org, and a few disciplinary actions were taken. I always thought it was just rumors, but my buddy knew the base housing officer and it turned out to be a real situation.
This was just post-Vietnam. The US military thought they had too many servicepeople. Re-orgs and early retiring of officers for time in grade was commonplace. Things could change overnight as new commands were started and others were closed out. Just look at the Air Force Ranger program. But that was also a time when allot of men wanted to get out of military service by saying they were homosexual. So we never trusted rumors.
For the ladies' opinion on the comments made by The_Repugnant_Conservative, I asked the 2 ex-US military servicewomen to read the comments I had printed out. We all go horseback riding in a group. The nurse is small, about 5ft3 and slim, the former AMTech is 5ft10, with muscles on her muscles from carrying a laptop in one hand and a tool box in the other for 5 years. The nurse was a devoted martial arts enthusiast, the AMTech took up women's roller derby after her military service, and I wouldn't worry if she had my back in a rough bar. These young women are both really attractive, the nurse like Janet Leigh and the AMTech like a tall Jayne Mansfield (is my age showing?)
These young women are giving up their more violent recreation because they are moving in with their boyfriends and considering starting a family. Horseback riding isn't totally safe, but it's safer than karate or roller derby.
Both women thought The_Repugnant_Conservative didn't know any heterosexual servicemen. Then they both said about the same thing at about the same time: "Men are so-o Gro-oss." was one comment. The other comment was, "Men are disgusting." They were both referring to how men seemed to enjoy making fart jokes when superior officers weren't around, but these women were nearby. They also thought it was very juvenile the way servicemen stared at them, and openly discussed how these women would look naked.
Both of these very attractive, heterosexual women thought the idea of being naked in front of their counterpart servicemen would be degrading and disgusting. But they also agreed the hetero men would probably enjoy it allot, and these servicemen would be hoping it happened as often as possible.
These ladies were quite thankful that Uncle Sam provided them with separate quarters and showers, because after a day getting sweaty and filthy (In an Iraqi field hospital or at a Kuwaiti or Turkish air base), they just wanted to strip and run for the showers. They did have some stories of showers with peepholes and techs setting up cameras to look down the front of their uniforms, but they just tried to ignore this stuff. They'd heard rumors of even greater invasions of privacy for servicewomen, but I really just wanted their opinions.
They both had a huge laugh about how they often "fixed" certain servicemen, by telling some of the new transfers that so-and-so was gay (or bisexual). They thought it was hilarious that all the straight men in the squadron got really squeamish about taking showers in the same communal showers as these labeled men. But they said it served some servicemen "right", to feel a similar kind of loss of respect and even dignity that servicewomen were made to feel all the time by servicemen. They also said that the constant barrage of sexual innuendo and "naked rating" that is common in the US military, made some women get out because they couldn't "tough it out"
These ladies also felt bad for the guys ostracized by their squadron mates or platoon comrades once they were outed as gay. Their opinion was that more than half of the straight guys wouldn't be comfortable getting into a communal shower with one of these outed gay guys, and they all seemed uncomfortable getting naked in open barracks and tents in from of these outed servicemen. Both young women thought The_Repugnant_Conservative had definitely not served any serious service time since 1990.
The Asst Mngr at my favorite grocery store said that men come into her store regularly to buy ladies products used monthly, and she sees many men shopping in this department at WalMarts. She said "of course not many men in your (my) generation do that, the women do all the shopping" (have I really become that obviously senior? Crap). She said there used to be a huge number of returns and exchanges for these women's products because men might be willing to buy things, but they didn't really know their wives' or girlfriends' real needs, so they bought the wrong stuff.
Now, cellphones have changed that. Men are often standing in front of the products for women, talking about the names of each item until, like a slow heat seeking missile reaching it's target, they grab the item and throw it into their cart. In such cases, the woman has clearly described (sometimes it seems like word for word from the box), and the guy buys it as fast as possible, feigning indifference at the cashier. She said that amongst the people she sees under 30, men are doing allot more of the shopping now. The Asst Mngr thought The_Repugnant_Conservative was gay.
But it's MY opinion that counts here, because I'm the writer.
I think you are all wrong about your opinion. I think that the day gays in the military get to openly show they are gay, we'd quickly be headed towards having the equivalent one large heterosexual US military and a much smaller homosexual US military. Then budgets would be prohibitive and we'd have no gays in the US military. A million or so requests for transfer because servicemen are getting "creeped out" by the way a gay soldier looks at them naked, and ALL the camaraderie normal with men under arms would disappear. Even if law suits weren't successful (and all four ex-service people I chatted with said they were sure there would be hundreds of lawsuits by heterosexuals if gays could openly declare they were gay in the military), the esprit de corp required to make combat and patrol situations work, would be destroyed.The ex-AMTech was sure she knew some currently gay servicemen who would continue to lie about their sexual orientation, even if they could legally declare they were gay, just to stay in their squadrons, because they liked serving their country, and liked doing what they were doing. All four ex-servicepeople agreed that heterosexual men (and even some heterosexual women) would feel a huge loss of dignity if they had to strip naked in front of ANYONE that viewed them as the same sex that their sexual orientation made them feel attracted to.
Every one of these people thought that since heterosexuals and homosexuals have different SEXUAL orientation, the unresolvable problem would come down to just that, SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Women generally would not feel good about being naked in front of heterosexual men or homosexual women (and they each acknowledged they knew a few). These women said the reason why models like working with gay designers who see them naked so much, is because the gay men have a different sexual orientation and so the models don't feel so degraded being naked. (I didn't realize until now that many gay doctors had practices with large numbers of gay men and many women of both orientations).
So I think there is no way that the US Military can EVER allow gays to declare their sexual orientation openly in the military ... EVER. Not counting lawsuits, the breakdown in order essential to a military that functions well would happen, practically overnight from the time of the first outings. The disorder might be less severe in the officers' corps because they can usually get separate quarters. But EVERY person agreed it is the feeling of degradation ANYONE feels when circumstances require that the naked person, is exposed in front of someone they don't choose to be naked in front of, and it can be intolerable if the naked person feels the person(s) watching them being naked have a sexual orientation that makes the naked person's sex attractive to the viewer(s). That seemed to include everyone. Women feel degraded being seen naked in front of any man they don't specifically agree should see them naked, and heterosexual men seem to feel degraded being seen naked by homosexual men. This seems to be the EXACT reason why the military has the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". There is no other way gays could do their patriotic duty and serve in the US Military.
TomTGradeczek, tomtgradeczek@lycos.com
author of Waiting For John Doe (Number Two), (how a former Hitler Youth successfully arranged mass murder through a terrorist attack on Oklahoma and America).
“Name a sin that doesn’t separate us from God. - I’d be interested in that one.”
Start here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#III
“Then, name a Sin that God wont forgive.”
See if you can find this in your Bible: ...”therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.”
“However, his word states that its our sin that separates us from God. Not our really, really bad sin whiel the only kindve sins get a pass. Sin is Sin.”
That’s very simplistic. Too simplistic, in fact, to be accurate or complete.
“God has basically told us that we are all falling short of his glory.”
God is not a radical egalitarian. Saints are, in fact, above me...and lots of other people. Matter of fact, one doesn’t need to be anything close to a saint to be better than me.
While salvation comes only through God’s grace, merit also exists. Some people are very meritorious. Others are not.
“Idolotry in this instance is worshipping yourself as being better than someone else as well as disregarding what God is saying.”
Buncombe. From a theological or philosophical standpoint, that is nonsense.
“Adam and Eve got tossed out of the garden for stealing eating an apple”
Okay, I was suspecting this for a while, but you just gave it away. You are not a Christian, but an atheist who fancies himself clever enough to have some fun with believers, and even hoist them on their own petard.
No Christian would say that Adam and Eve got tossed out of the garden for stealing and eating an apple. Only an atheist drunk on the arrogance of ignorance would advance such a notion and expect it to be taken seriously.
“Sin separates us. plain and simple”
Simple minded, more like. (/Monty Python mode)
“As for the 2000 years of civilizations greatest minds and holiest men, please list some references to scripture that supports your point”
Please show me the scripture that says all of Christianity, and everything that God ever communicated to man, is contained in the Scriptures. Please show me where it says that Jesus didn’t say more to the Disciples than was set down in the books of the New Testament.
“Otherwise, you’re adding or subtracting from scripture.”
Nonsense. God has communicated many things to man that are not contained in Scripture. Of course, Scripture is the final authority, and anything that contradicts it is not of God.
“Perhaps I’ve just missed something.”
Perhaps the ocean is wet.
AH- That explains it- I’m guessing your Catholic. I’m evangelistic. We differ in some fundamental opinions. Having Said that, I respect your points and also should say before I go further that if we are of the same mind on Christ as I mention below, then this conversation is nothing but love.
First things first.
I’m not an atheist. Jesus Christ is my lord and savior and through him along am I saved. I pray pretty continually, attend church services, am part of a small group and do daily scriptural studies. God has saved me from myself, the world and my sins, and even though I still stumble constantly, I am always striving to improve and not give Jesus a bad name.
Secondly. The link you provided appears to justify a lot of what I’m saying.
I’m not seeing anything there other than Man trying to justify what he thinks are worse sins. It doesnt Speak of Gods thoughts on it- it references a lot of mens thoughts ( Great men to be sure, but not God)
Third. I’m speaking of the eternal separation from God called sin. Not Merit. As to be better than you or myself, thats a very slippery slope. We in fact do good works because of our grace. Not to earn it.
Fourth- Buncombe? Great word - I’m using that one from now on. :-)
Fifth- I don’t think you understood or read beyond the “Adam and Eve got thrown out of the Garden for stealing an Apple” comment- In context, you can take that as “ original sin of lying to God was enough to separate them from him. They were immediately ashamed and hid from God. Which then led to lying.
So, the small sin of disobeying turned into stealing, turned into lying and hiding. Once Sin is out, no matter how small, we have fallen short, and we’ve opened the door to much worse sin - God knows this which is why we needed a savior to allow us back into the kingdom. We cant stop sinning without the Holy spirit and his grace.
Hence, my comments that all sin is the same in Gods eyes. Little sins lead to big sins which lead to death.
Six- So you cant provide scripture to support your point about the 2000 years of civilizations greatest minds and holy men? :-) C’mon - no answering questions with a question.
7th Thanks for the great quote from Matthew -
How About Acts
“and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.”
Titus
“looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; 14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.”
Or John - “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
The point I’m trying to make is that Sodomites can be saved the same as murderers such as King David or Paul, Sexually immoral (Mary MAgdalene, Samson, King David )and anything can be forgiven by God- HOWEVER- the repentance must be real. There will come a time when those folks will be left to the darkness with much gnashing of teeth- but until then Jesus asks that we seek and save that which is lost-
He didnt come for the well-
“When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
In any case, I’m not sure I see us agreeing, but I do admire your knowledge of scripture and the fact that you are willing to defend the Lord-
Take care and sorry If I got your blood pressure rising -
“and do daily scriptural studies.”
Protestants seem to think that just anyone can pick up the Bible any old time and correctly understand what he reads. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Your take on Genesis is a case in point.
The central point is not lying. The fruit was not an apple; it was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent said to Eve, “You shall be as gods.” In other words, he told her she would have no need of God to guide her. She would herself be capable of discerning right and wrong on the basis of nothing more than her own intelligence. She wanted to break free of God and decide things for herself. That was original sin, not lying.
“not give Jesus a bad name.”
You ought to read C.S. Lewis on that point.
“I’m not seeing anything there other than Man trying to justify what he thinks are worse sins.”
That’s the problem. To see what is there requires study and education. You’re not seeing it, but you should be.
“Great men to be sure, but not God.”
It would seem that you have not considered how much correct understanding can be achieved by generation after generation of wise, holy men guided by the Holy Spirit. And, like most protestants, it would seem that you deny that God still speaks to us.
“Third. I’m speaking of the eternal separation from God called sin. Not Merit.”
The concept of merit is pertinent to rebuttal of the concept of radical spiritual egalitarianism.
“As to be better than you or myself, thats a very slippery slope.”
Which is why one needs an anchor.
“We in fact do good works because of our grace. Not to earn it.”
Yes, of course.
“God knows this which is why we needed a savior to allow us back into the kingdom.”
We needed a Savior because man had become so very, very wicked that mankind’s relationship with God could no longer be repaired through human effort alone.
“Hence, my comments that all sin is the same in Gods eyes.”
Which contradicts scripture.
“So you cant provide scripture to support your point about the 2000 years of civilizations greatest minds and holy men?”
That question is so bad it’s not even wrong. It betrays fundamental misunderstandings so extreme that I can’t even see where to begin discussing them.
I tried once before to provoke you to thought by asking where in the Bible the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found. Evidently, it didn’t work, so I’ll spell it out: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found *nowhere* in scripture, and yet you believe it as Gospel. Something is out of whack there, and you really need to give it some thought.
“How About Acts…Titus…Or John”
Great Scriptures. How are they pertinent to the subject at hand?
“The point I’m trying to make is that Sodomites can be saved the same as murderers…HOWEVER- the repentance must be real.”
Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean that glancing at a woman’s cleavage is as grave a sin as murder. That proposition is just downright silly.
“i’m not sure i see us agreeing, but I do admire your knowledge of scripture”
G. K. Chesterton wrote of the Catholic Church, “There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.”
Compared to this, protestant denominations are impoverished.
“sorry If I got your blood pressure rising”
Why would you think that?
Hope you come home to the Church some day.
Didn’t intend to comment on Gays in the military. But upon the merit of a lawsuit based upon an assumed right to not be seen naked by someone who finds them sexually attractive.
Gendered public toilets have only existed for a bit over 150 years. And yet a quick search of the net doesn’t reveal much about why they came about. What little is found points only to one’s sex as the sole basis for seperation, and references to protecting Modesty.
Given that should such a right be found to exist. That it will virtually do away with anything other than what we now know as the Family Restroom. And the corresponding cost to every public facility in the country. I suspect that particular tact leads to un uphill battle.
I suppose one more question the women could answer for us. Which would they rather have in the Ladies room stall next to them. A Lesbian or a Gay Guy behaving like a guy in the john?
We're talking about a US military organization built on levels of respect. If women have been granted the privilege of not being seen naked by men who might want them as sex objects, then heterosexual men will be afforded the same privilege when and if it ever happens that gays in the military will be allowed to declare themselves gay. Perhaps it will happen some day that gays will be legally allowed to say they are gay while in the US military. But on that day, heterosexual men will be able to petition for the same rights women in the military currently have, to be separated from the eyes of those who might view their sex as SEX OBJECTS when they are naked. At that point the majority of heterosexual men will be allowed to be separated from gay men and a very small gay military group, will be too costly to support. So better to lie and say you are not gay, if you want to be in the US military, than to declare you are gay and have no place at all in the US military.
author of Waiting For John Doe (Number Two), How a former Hitler Youth successfully fulfilled his NAZI dream of avenging America's part in bringing down Hilter, by arranged mass murder, through a terrorist attack on Oklahoma and America. and read Tom's new novel The Physics of Crime, coming soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.