Posted on 05/26/2019 7:55:48 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In recent remarks, Pete Buttigieg, Democratic presidential candidate and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, remarked that his same-sex “marriage” to Chasten Glezman has brought him closer to God. His remarks were directed toward Vice President Mike Pence, who is on record as opposing such “marriages.” Buttigieg said:
Being married to Chasten has made me a better human being because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God.
This raises a question: To what god has he moved closer? Respectfully and sincerely, Mr. Buttigieg, it cannot be the God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures and through the Church. God is not in the habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He does not contradict himself by altering, let alone reversing (as you claim) his teachings.
At every stage of scriptural revelation, from Genesis through the New Testament, God has spoken of homosexual acts as sinful and disordered. He also condemns other forms of illicit sexual union such as fornication and adultery. Jesus even condemns the entertaining of lustful thoughts. I have written before of the biblical record on these teachings (“Do Not Be Deceived: God Forbids Homosexual Acts”).
Some point out that Jesus is never recorded in Scripture as condemning homosexual acts. That may be true — but he is not recorded as condemning rape, either. An argument based on silence is weak at best and erroneous at worst. Further, Jesus said to his apostles “He who hears you hears me” — and the apostles unambiguously describe homosexual acts as sinful. These biblical texts are not ambiguous, and they are consistent across every biblical era.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Homosexuals were cultural predators too. They have constantly pushed to remake society and its institutions in the image of their sin till now people who are good people as the PC crowd deems goodness to be are sometimes so stark raving mad that they cannot tell what restroom people should use.
Really, in terms of civilizational warfare that has been driven by the mavens of PC and perversion bears some comparison to that driven by Sharia and Islam. The differences have not to do which the spiritual kingdom behind both but to the nature of the societies that they emerged in.
With Islam, as debased and as violent as pagan culture could get, even the pagans still understood certain aspects of basic morality and so Mohammad created a cult that told them nothing new but gave them a route to exercise their piety, such as it was, and their brutality and cruelty that was endemic of so much of the ancient world in a way that was beneficial to his worldly ambitions, his lust for power and prestige.
With political correctness, on matters well beyond homosexuality, but of course: homosexuality, in the current context these emerged from a culture a world far removed from that which produced Islam. In a culture steeped with Christian and Jewish influences and also with influences of dechristianization and various iterations of socialist thought what emerged was and is a form of militant niceness, the sort of niceness that CS Lewis wrote of when he talked about tyrants whose consciences approved of their tyrannies.
This “niceness” and its attendant tolerance owe everything to the idea, somewhat workable with moral God centered people, of individual autonomy even as it looks to the State to make people nice, to force them to be nice ... and so demands government regulate put near everything that isn’t their grail of “freedom”: what they do with their genitalia. They sold this as the sexual revolution ... but remember what they’ve become, it would never do to just be an amoral revolution.
It has been since day one, since Larry Flynn and the rest, people fighting to have their space for immorality and the cumulative effect could only be that others must not have any space, or any institution, for moral life.
So Islam: a war cult that could only be conventionally so and remains that to this very day, is also a supremacist affair that seeks to make sure no one else has their own space that isn’t Sharia ... and on the other hand there’s the sexual revolution united with basically Cultural Marxism to create a different supremacist affair that seeks to subject all people to the most radical expression of sexual liberation because their morality might someday threaten to get in the way of them getting their jollies or (while we’re at it) having their damnable Revolution.
From without: cruelty that still manages to be sane.
From within: mealy mouthed kindness and tolerance that are stark raving bonkers.
... even to the point of becoming a form of Cultural Suicide Fetish where the latter actively serve the interest of the former.
Nice post.
Unless It moved up his date to meeting Him in Eternity, I seriously doubt it.
That’s not God you are close to Pete, but to you, it may look like and sound like God while you are on this earth. Your eyes will be opened in death and unless you have changed and accepted God, you will find out how you were duped all along.
That the different churches number them either at 66,73,or 81.
quite prophetic
I only read the posted part of the article, but it sounds like the author was condemning the dude.
Sodomites do not engage in sexual activity. They engage in perversion. Sexual activity is only capable with two members of the opposite sex.
Sodomy strikes at the root of human nature because of its perversion of the procreative impulse, without which the race will die. But in case we don’t see it, God does.
My entire point us that two people of opposite sex, engaging in sexual activity, for their own gratification, is no less perverse.
I’m canceling our date
Still can’t figure why God didn’t include homosexual acts in the Commandments....
Unless you meant to say the Bible we read today has been TRANSLATED many times, you are wrong. We even have manuscript copies of the Scriptures in the original languages they were first written in. It's kind of hard to "rewrite" something and get away with it when the original is still available!
There are many passages in our Bible that are not in the ‘original languages’. Also we have found many errors in the previous translations.
Got any examples? I'm not talking about words that couldn't be a one-to-one English word swap translation and nor do I deny that some translations are better than others. My point is simply that when you replied to MIchaelTArchangel's post that, “The trouble with people rewriting the Bible is that they think they are God.”, you said, "The Bible we read today has been rewritten many times.". The implication I got from that is that we can't know what the Scriptures originally said and that feeds into the deception of those who want to do their OWN rewrites of God's word to try to justify their sin -like Pete. It remains true that we DO still have thousands of manuscript copies of the Scriptures in the languages they were first written in by which anyone who knows Greek and/or Hebrew/Aramaic can go to verify whether a translation is accurate.
You may be interested in reading The Pre-Reformation History of the Bible From 1,400 BC to 1,400 AD and English Bible History.
The Bible says “Be fruitful and multiply”.
Try that with a man’s ass.
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.