Posted on 11/16/2009 2:40:30 AM PST by markomalley
Two weeks ago, just after the Maine’s successful reversal of the state legislature’s decision to sanction same-sex marriage, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer asked me a profound question: “Would Jesus have spent $550,000 to oppose same-sex marriage?”
The question was exactly what many secular parties had been asking in Portland, Maine, where she was speaking to me by satellite. My answer was that Jesus would have given the money to oppose same-sex marriage. My reasoning was simple: Jesus would have upheld his own teaching; refusing to be a loving, permanent enabler of a misguided local government. I mentioned in the interview that Washington, DC was struggling with the same question.
Since the interview, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington gave notice to the DC City Council that if it approves the currently proposed same-sex marriage legislation, there will be dire consequences for the city. DC’s same-sex marriage bill undoubtedly will be passed next month. Although the bill does not require religious organizations to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings, it would require that religious charities obey new marriage laws. This could require the Catholic Archdiocese to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese explained, “If the city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular… that’s really a problem.” Gibbs noted that any religious group that receives city funds would be required to give same-sex couples healthcare benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples, and rent church space to a support group for same-sex couples.
(snip)
The reaction of council members has been more about protecting their stand on same-sex marriage than the city’s poor.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Jesus taught that looking at a woman lustfully is sinful but he was/is OK with male on male sodomy...Right.
Someone should ask the reporter type whether or not they have the amount spent to promote same sex marriage, and whether or not that is worth it
Someone should ask the reporter why she is pretending that she cares what Jesus would do?
Are you saying Jesus couldn’t throw a strike???
——Major League
“Jesus taught that looking at a woman lustfully is sinful but he was/is OK with male on male sodomy...Right.”
Jesus expects both from fallen man and will forgive both, given true repentence. But that is the heart of the problem. Homosexuals want to celebrate sin, not repent it. And, for me and my children to join in that celebration.
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer asked me a profound question: “Would Jesus have spent $550,000 to oppose same-sex marriage?”
Well no.
Jesus would have done as he did.
Traveled around the area teaching the people the way of the Kingdom.
Unfortunately for the homosexuals that does not include their perversions...
When will CNN and pals take up the problem Islam has with homosexual behavior (at least in the Koran)? CNN headline the other night: ‘Catholic Threat to pull aid from the poor and hospitals’. A paraphrase, but the first two words are a direct quote. When will they complain about Islam’s teachings about homosexuals? Or even use the word, ‘threat’ in the same sentence as Islam?
Oh, wait, moderate Muslims don’t interpret the Koran literally, and that’s the only kind of Muslim in the US or anywhere else. The whole world is full of moderate Muslims who’ve never even heard of Jihad or honor killings, stonings, beheadings, pouring oil down the throats of infidels, etc..
He allowed his own blood to be shed as the cost for our sins...a far higher price than 500,000 dollars!
Frankly a question like that is something akin to what Judas Iscariot asked of Christ when Christ was “asked”/”criticized” about the perfume that was poured out upon Jesus’ feet. “Should not that perfume had been sold and given to the poor?”( and we all know what Judas turned out to be!)
Contessa Brewer asks that same type of question in the same spirit of Judas!
“Finally, the biblical Jesus, who confronted both the political and religious hypocrites of his day, would never let himself be blackmailed into becoming a permanent agent of any corrupt government.”
Note the reference to corrupt government!
God wiped out the homosexuals twice, because their behavior was such an abomination. Once at Sodom and Gomorrah, and then with disease in Romans.
Jesus, who offers them redemption, probably would have cast out their homosexual demons instead. Their homosexuality would have been cast into the bodies of pigs. He would have normalized them, so homosexual marriage wouldn't have been an issue. He'd have cured them.
Do you want the government telling you what your religion
is all about?
Establishing one set of rules for everybody (a la Ferdinand and Isabella)—either accept what the government proffers as the “correct” teaching, or else leave?
Are Jews next going to be ordered to eat ham?
How about requiring an equal number of women in the clergy of all denominations?
And maybe requiring everyone to pay for abortions?
Is there going to be any allowance for individual conscience any more, or are we all going to be required to accept what the state decides is “correct”?
And if so, why did our ancestors come to America? For that, we could have stayed in Europe...
I think Judas was an early (if not the first) Democrat. Someone (Mary) took their property (expensive perfume) and did with it what they wanted to do (washed Jesus' feet) in John 12:3. The Democrat (Judas) complained that the property could have been sold and distributed to the poor. After he took his own cut, of course. John 12:4-6
A "profound" question? A "profound" question? It is about as stupid a question as I can imagine.
Except that she lacks the decency to return the 30 pieces of silver and go out and hang herself.
Further, opponents of "gay marriage" need to point out what its proponents are really pushing for--not the right to call themselves whatever they want, but the authority to force others to honor their unions, whether or not those people would otherwise be inclined to do so. It is the "gay marriage" proponents, not the opponents, who are attacking religious freedom.
Depends on how much raining fire and birmstone cost these days.
If He needed it, He could have opened a fish's mouth and there would have been a million dollars in there.
I really don't think money would have been the problem. The problem would be men who think they can redefine marriage that God created. However, everything belongs to God and He has already fought and won His battle nearly 2000 years ago. If the gates of Hell themselves shall not prevail, I doubt any amount of money would be a problem for Him.
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.