Posted on 04/23/2015 7:06:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This NYT story, an obvious attempt at a gotcha that’ll damage Cruz among his base, will do more damage to the two businessmen within their own circle of allies, I suspect. It’s one thing for Ted Cruz, social conservative, to socialize with gay friends. It’s another for gays to socialize with — gasp — Ted Cruz, social conservative.
During the gathering, according to two attendees, Mr. Cruz said he would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.
The dinner and “fireside chat” for about a dozen people with Mr. Cruz and his wife, Heidi, was at the Central Park South penthouse of Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, longtime business partners who were once a couple and who have been pioneers in the gay hospitality industry.
“Ted Cruz said, ‘If one of my daughters was gay, I would love them just as much,’” recalled Mr. Reisner, a same-sex marriage proponent who described himself as simply an attendee at Mr. Weiderpass’s event…
Mr. Cruz also told the group that the businessman Peter Thiel, an openly gay investor, is a close friend of his, Mr. Sporn said. Mr. Thiel has been a generous contributor to Mr. Cruz’s campaigns.
If you think, as the NYT obviously does, that opposing gay marriage necessarily means you’re driven by hatred of gays, then yeah, that’s one odd dinner party. And in fairness, some of Cruz’s rhetorical flourishes during the gay rights/religious liberty debate did make him seem less likely to attend an event at the home of SSM supporters than, say, Jeb Bush might be. But Cruz doesn’t categorically oppose gay marriage, as the Times is forced to admit. He’s personally opposed but thinks the states should decide, even if that means the practice is gradually legalized. Nor is it news that Cruz’s base includes some prominent gay right-wingers. Peter Thiel, a libertarian, has been donating big bucks to him for years, starting back when he ran for AG of Texas. Weiderpass and Reisner are apparently strong supporters of Israel, an obvious point of common ground with Cruz. Other potential Cruz backers, although straight themselves, are outspoken in supporting gay marriage despite their alliance on most other issues with the GOP. The most famous example: David Koch, one half of the “Kochtopus” that haunts lefty dreams nightly. Cruz seems to respectfully disagree with most SSM supporters, assuming they’re not trying to shut down pizzerias for declining to cater gay weddings, and some famous SSM supporters seem to respectfully disagree with him. (Shucks, even Mike Huckabee cops to having gay friends.) If you liked him before reading this, why would you like him less now?
But I don’t know. Maybe I’ve achieved a status of such candy-ass RINO-hood that the Times’s radar on what will and won’t alienate social conservatives is better than mine. Supporting gay marriage obviously will alienate them. Attending a gay wedding might (although opinion seems to be divided on that) for a similar reason, namely, that some who regard marriage as a sacred union between men and women conclude that that means they shouldn’t tacitly recognize a gay marriage by witnessing it. It’s not clear what sacred precept is violated, though, by saying you’d love your daughter no less if she were gay; it’s even less clear which one forbids having dinner at a gay friend’s home. But I’ll leave that to the comments to hash out. In the meantime, WaPo finds 61 percent now support gay marriage, a new high nationally although not dramatically higher than the numbers have been in recent years. Republican opposition is strong at 34/63, but interestingly not as strong when you ask whether states should be allowed to ban the practice. In that case, support stands at just 52/45. Maybe there’s some small section of SSM opponents who think that gays nonetheless have a constitutional right to marry. Other than that, I’m not sure what explains the discrepancy.
re: “I’m not sure I’ve got what you’re saying.
1) God provides faith to believe to all men ? Can I see a quote on that?”
Faith is given to us as a gift of God:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
That gift of faith is available to all men, but not all men choose to exercise it. Some refuse to repent. Some refuse God’s gift of salvation. This is not difficult to understand.
re: “2) If not all men want God’s Lordship over them, that
means some do. Those that do want God’s Lordship
over them deserve salvation. Is that what you’re
saying?”
No, you’ve got it backwards. Those who repent do not “deserve” salvation - they “receive” it because of God’s great mercy, and, because He promised to save “all who call upon the Name of the Lord”.
Ok, here is my last response. Faith precedes salvation. It is by “grace we are saved, through faith.” “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes will have everlasting life.” “The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”
All these passages teach that faith precedes salvation, repentance comes before salvation. Those who do not repent perish. Those who repent do not perish. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Belief comes before salvation, “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Faith is the means by which we receive justification. It follows that faith is prior to justification.
I have already pointed out several passages that Christ died for everyone, not just the Elect. Hebrews 2:9’ “we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” Titus 2:11, “The grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for all people.” 2 Peter 3:9, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 1 Timothy 2:4’ “God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” John 3:16, “ for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” 2 Corinthians 5:14-19, says “. . . God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them”, then Paul adds in verse 15, “He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them. . .”
I have already pointed out that Paul makes the case in the first three chapters of Romans that man is without excuse for non-belief in God because creation itself is a testimony to God’s existence.
I have already pointed out that The Bible clearly implies that we, all men, are required to believe, to repent, to choose to obey, to exercise faith to be saved. Jesus died for all men, all men are sinners, yet whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved. Logically, all men must have the capacity to respond to God, to repent, to have faith in God’s Son. Mankind is held accountable for his belief or unbelief. All men have the ability to respond to God.
I have already answered you about receiving God’s gift of salvation is not a work by which we can claim merit. It is all by God’s mercy that we are saved.
If you don’t accept what I am saying, fine, that’s your right. I believe I have answered all your questions, but obviously not to your satisfaction. It’s almost 3am in the morning and I’ve got to go to work. If you, after reading this post to you, still reject what I’m saying, then I am finished with the discussion. I am sure you have plenty of things to do, just as I do. So, let’s not take up anymore of each other’s time.
You did not respond to my post.
I pointed out that the Bible says God gives faith to the elect. I asked you to point out a verse where God gives faith to the non-elect.
You can’t ?
re: “I pointed out that the Bible says God gives faith to the elect.”
Yes, but you didn’t show a verse the demonstrates that faith is ONLY available to the Elect.
On the other hand, how is it that Jesus lamented, “Oh, ye of little faith”, or “He was unable to do many miracles because of their lack of faith.”?
Why would Jesus rebuke those of little faith if it was outside the realm of their ability to exercise faith?
And another wonderful passage where Jesus marveled at the faith of the centurion who told Jesus that He only needed to say the word and his servant would be healed. Jesus said he had not found such great faith in all Israel. Why would Jesus honor the centurion’s faith if the centurion was merely exercising a faith that he had nothing to do with?
Why would Jesus tell the woman with the issue of blood, “And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer; YOUR faith has made you well. Go in peace.”? There is no indication in the text that she received her faith from someone else. It obviously means the faith came from her. She was able to exercise faith prior to her healing.
The clear meaning is that faith is available to everyone who chooses to exercise it. Otherwise, why would Jesus commend someone’s faith? Why would He honor it?
How is it that Jesus said of the woman who came into Simon the Pharisee’s home and washed Jesus’ feet with her tears,
“Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” Then He said to the woman, “YOUR FAITH has saved you. Go in peace.”
The simple reading of the text is that it was the woman’s own faith in Jesus that saved her. There is no indication that she received her faith from somewhere else. Also, notice that Jesus said her sins were forgiven, because she loved Him so much. How is that possible if she couldn’t respond from her own volition?
Further, her act of faith takes NOTHING away from the mighty power of God’s grace and love. He offers the gift and she gratefully received it in faith.
Calvinism limits God’s saving act, limits His love. I believe Calvinism is a besmirching of God’s character. God has clearly expressed love for the whole world. He desires ALL MEN to come to a knowledge of the truth, that ALL MEN may be saved. The Bible clearly teaches that God expects men to repent, to confess their sins, to obey because they are held accountable for their own acts. God does not fix it so that men cannot believe. God does not send babies to hell - the Calvinist God is a monster. Calvinism smears God’s character when it says He only died for a few, or that He only loves a select few.
Yes, God has selected people for tasks and His own purposes, but never does it indicate that some people were created solely for the purpose of eternal damnation. That idea is an abomination on God’s character.
You said I didn’t answer your post. I DID ANSWER IT!!! You just don’t want to accept my answers. Which is fine. Who am I? I am nothing - it is God that we must please.
So, please do not respond to this post as I do not wish to continue this circular arguing with you. It is accomplishing nothing.
Duh
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.