Posted on 07/07/2015 5:02:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Former Democratic president and born-again Christian Jimmy Carter declared today that he believed that Jesus would embrace gay marriage. In support of this belief, flying in the fact of 2,000 years of scriptural and historical scholarship, Jimmy Carter cited noted theologian Jimmy Carter.
Let’s take a look at some of the language Carter and host Marc Lamont Hill used:
All of which seems be a tacit admission that Carter realizes there’s basically no textual or historical support for his assertion. He just believes that he’s right. And feelings, as the modern left will tell you, trump all.
There are two major and popular perceptions of Jesus, the divine Jesus Christ and the so-called “Historical Jesus,” historians’ attempt to reconstruct Jesus’ life without making any claims of divinity. Either way you conceive of Jesus, it’s extremely unlikely he was a gay marriage supporter.
If Jesus was just a man, he was a peasant in 1st century Galilee. He was a member of a religious community with extremely strict, patriarchal marriage laws and that believed homosexuality should be punished with death. The notion that he would have positive beliefs towards gay marriage literally millennia before any of the world’s brightest minds even considered that marriage could exist outside of a man-woman marriage… well, it’s more than a little far-fetched.
If there are any atheists or skeptics who do believe that Jesus was so incredibly prescient and ahead of his time, I earnestly suggest you might as well embrace His omniscience and divinity. But of course, you’d have to believe that the same disciples who copied down Jesus’ radical claims of divinity and complete equality of the sexes, races, and classes accidentally forgot to add the gay thing.
As for the notion that the Jesus of the Gospels — the Messiah and Son of God that Carter has worshiped for a lifetime — would support gay marriage… well, Carter was right to admit he didn’t have any scripture to quote. The kindest interpretation is that the Gospels are silent about gay marriage. At worst, they are explicit that marriage is intended to be between man and woman.
“Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman?” Jesus told the religious leaders of the day, “It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.” How heterocisnormative, am I right?
And again, one would have to believe that Jesus’ followers remembered and put to writing Jesus’ radical assertions that men and women were equal, that slave and free were equal, that poor and rich were equal, that Gentiles and Jews alike could worship and find eternal life in the God of Israel, but forgot to jot down that gay marriage was a-okay. Instead, St. Paul’s letters– which Christians like Carter believe were divinely inspired– rather explicitly condemn homosexuality alongside adultery and other sexual immortality.
Carter’s belief that Jesus would approve of gay marriage stems from his belief that Jesus would “approve of any love affair that was honest and sincere, and was not damaging to anyone else.” But this is simply false. Jesus was categorically opposed to relationships outside of marriage and divorce and remarriage, regardless of whether they “damaged” anybody. On the contrary, He taught that even looking at someone lustfully was a sin. No damages there.
Even when Jesus saved the adulteress from execution and told her tormentors to judge not lest they be judged, He told her to “sin no more.” He simply wasn’t a proponent of America’s post-Sexual Revolution anything-goes ethos. If Jesus lived today, we’d get weekly Jezebel articles explaining how he was a slut-shaming mansplainer waging a War on Women.
So setting aside the Gospels and historic conceptions of Jesus, what is Carter left with? His personal feelings and “intuition.”
But far, far more Christians across the globe believe he’s wrong. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out in the Gettysburg Address, both sides of the Civil War believed Providence was on their side. So did the Nazis and the United States, and the Crusaders and the Turks. When men decide what God would support based on their “institution” and personal beliefs, they almost always end up with a God parroting their own beliefs back to them. That’s why we Christians believe God inspired the Bible in the first place: so we could read it to figure out his stance on certain issues.
Liberals mocked George W. Bush mercilessly for claiming that God wanted him to invade Iraq and that God wanted him to be president (despite those quotes coming secondhand). We will see similar mockery of Carter’s presumption to know the heart of God, divorced from the actual language of the Bible and any historical context?
Somehow I doubt it.
>>And again, you haven’t answered my two questions because YOU CANNOT ANSWER THEM.
Scripture answers your questions, you just don’t like what it says — especially in the Context of Romans 1:25..
When Created Things (like your free market wine) become objects of worship - the manure wagon is headed for the Rainbow wind-tunnel, again.
No, your scripture answers are avoidance techniques. You know, I’ve never talked with someone or heard Bible teachers who wouldn’t explain their points....until you. Since you won’t, I assume you can’t.
And what is your obsession with “Created things” - and worship. Seriously, the Creator has given inspiration to all created things, so you are shaming the Creator when you say this. So you have shamed at least two thirds of the Trinity now, and the Founding Fathers.
We are so lucky to have you, the most spiritually in tuned and brilliant person in world history, to tell us where God and the Founders messed up.
Ex 32:4 4
NIV
A system like that, in the Macro sense?
A opposed to this one:
Mark 10:21-22 21 22
NIV
Uhuh.
Rom 1:25-32 25 26 28
NIV
Anyone with common sense can see the process unfolding, again.
>>I’ve never talked with someone or heard Bible teachers who wouldn’t explain their points....
Sola Scriptura.
What does this mean?
Sounds like similar, non-scriptural, arguments used by homosexuals to pervert forgiveness of sin into permission to sin.
After all, God didn’t create any mistakes.... so how could their sexual perversion not be acceptable.
Evidently Sex is a system, like all temporal things, that is prone to corruption too.
Sort of like "fiscal" conservatism.
Well thank you for manning up and actually using your own words to try and answer something. And predictably, you have proven my case for me. If homosexuality were an indictment of all sex - that would mean all sex is evil. Maybe you think that way. Heck, you probably live that way. I've heard nothing about children. Maybe you're a eunuch.
Thus, it's only the perversion that is the problem, not sex itself.
By analogy, the perversion of the market (always done by government - and then taken advantage of by cronies) is not an indictment of the market itself.It's just an indictment of that perversion.
By your own sexual analogy. Which is what I've been saying, and what you've been calling "worship." I advocate for the free market system. I don't advocate for perverting it - I simply state, and you cannot refute it, that free markets and property are the sanctity of life outside the womb - because property is what you get in exchange for giving of your time and your abilities. That's all money, which is a form of property, is.
Money is not the problem. The market is not the problem. There is far more greed and corruption in Oligarchical systems and statist Marxist systems than there is in a market system. The wisdom of God in the market system is that it sets up for billions of win/win transactions that benefit every party in that transaction. Do people pervert that? Of course. That's an indictment of them as individuals or companies, not an indictment of the market.
>>There is far more greed and corruption in Oligarchical systems and statist Marxist systems than there is in a market system
Ex 32:4
Then they said, "These are your gods,
b O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
NIV
"these" are all of the above - Oligarchs, States, Markets - whatever people choose to focus and rely upon instead of their Creator.
God's 1st commandment doesn't differentiate the idolatry you refuse to acknowledge. Whenever He isn't first, Idolatry exists along with the associated due penalties that can plainly be read about in Romans 1:25+, and seen today.
"The problem is not the successes of capitalism, but rather its idealization; one that blinds us to reality"
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599679/The-untouchable-free-market-Dangers-of-idolatry.html?pg=all
It's a painful truth to realize that something we IDEAlize has become an instrument in our self-destruction.
But:
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
--Albert Einstein
you’re done....just sayin.....you’re done. This venue does not welcome the views of blatant enemies of the free market system.
But:
"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true."
--Albert Einstein
****************************
Main articles: Albert Einstein's political views and Albert Einstein's religious views
Einstein's political view was in favor of socialism and critical of capitalism, which he detailed in his essays such as "Why Socialism?". Einstein offered and was called on to give judgments and opinions on matters often unrelated to theoretical physics or mathematics. He strongly advocated the idea of a democratic global government that would check the power of nation-states in the framework of a world federation.
Einstein's views about religious belief have been collected from interviews and original writings. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. Einstein once wrote: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly".
Source: Wikipedia
It’s kind of hard to imagine a “Democratic global government” that doesn’t operate within a framework of law - aka a Republic.
Is America a Republic or a Democracy? It’s both or neither...or at least not American. Without the framework of law that secures the inalienable rights of the governed - American Government Of the People, By the People, and For the People, wouldn’t exist.
“TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS”
From who or what? It’s from the tyranny of the majority as much as it is from the merchant who uses dishonest scales.
I've experienced self-evidence of a Creator who intervenes on a personal and individual level in my life - so I can't agree with Einstein on that.
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.