Over at the First Things blog, there is a good discussion of the nature of hypocrisy, analyzing the charges against the South Carolina governor and adulterer Mark Sanford. First, Joe Carter:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.” The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”
By all appearances, Sanford does indeed believe in marital fidelity. His failures so far are due to his behaving in a way that does not comport with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency. Such consistency is essential—particularly for democratically elected representatives—for establishing and maintaining trust. This is why private behavior has such public implications. The marital infidelity of a elected officials strong signal they are untrustworthy: If a man cannot be trusted to keep a sacred vow to an intimate, how can I trust him to keep his word to me, a stranger?
What we should expect of an elected official is that they be a person of integrity—that their character be a morally consistent whole. A person who is free of contradictory ethical impulses and actions is more likely to behave in a manner that is trustworthy. Even if we disagree with their views, we can deduce how they will act and make our judgments about them accordingly.
Sanford believes that there is an objective moral standard and that his sin (his word) was a result of his external actions being inconsistent with his internal beliefs. Many of his detractors, however, believe that because all moral standards are subjective and internal, behavior can’t be objectively immoral, it can only be inconsistent. For people like Maddow, Sanford’s flaw is not that he acted immorally, but that he expected others to adhere to a standard that he himself failed to keep.
Now, Francis Beckwith:
Ironically, the real hypocrites seem to be Rachel Maddow and like-minded critics. For given their view of liberal autonomy and the sanctity of “personal choices,” it seems fair to say that they really do not believe that outsiders can condemn the judgments and private acts of others since Maddow et. al. do not actually believe there is one correct view of a rightly ordered life. Yet, Maddow and company do not hesitate to issue stern judgments about the inconsistency between the beliefs and the behaviors of people like Sanford, as if there was one correct view of a rightly ordered life. But, as we know, Maddow and company really don’t believe that. Consequently, they, and not their objects of ridicule, are the real hypocrites.
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
The Christian confesses the hypocrisy in him/herself but
those who do not believe the gospel remain entrenched in their hypocrisy. Repentance, that is, confessing your sin
and turning to Christ who forgives even your sins of hypocrisy is the main difference between hypocrites who do
believe in Christ and those who do not.
These columns are prime examples of the “stink of self righteousness” that the GOP seems unable to recognize within its ranks, much less give up. Whatever. Such is sinful human nature.
But it should not be so among Christians. We ought to have moral clarity. Yet so many of us, particularly whites, have been manipulated since birth to believe that the GOP is the party of God, that we revel in the stink right along with them.
From Sanford’s ‘modified limited hangout’ in the this week’s AP interview:
“There were a handful of instances [with other women] wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn’t have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line.”
“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story.”
“But if I’m completely honest, there are still feelings in the way. If we keep pushing it this way, we get those to die off, but they’re still there and they’re still real.”
“Everyone of us is going to be at that death bed one day and we’re going to look back over the whole of our lives and we’re going to ask, you know, was or what we’re willing to risk certain things that may be viewed as a stupid trade-off by the rest of the world but that’s for each person to determine. And so if you end up 50 years here on earth and you know, alright, maybe I get another 30 and if you come into connection with a soul that touches yours in a way that no one’s ever has, even if it’s a place you can’t go, this notion of knowing that you know, for me, became very important.”
“I will be able to die knowing that I had met my soul mate.”
“I don’t want to blow up my time in politics”
“I don’t want to blow up future earning power”
“I don’t want to blow up the kids’ lives.”
“I don’t want to blow up 20 years that we’ve invested.”
More quotes from Sanford are here.
Dr. Veith, your point is well taken. You are not a hypocrite for falling short of standards you yourself believe in. We all do that, in spades, as sinners. You ARE a hypocrite, however, when you hold others to standards you yourself do not embrace. Maddow and the other critics who are so quick to fall on moral infidelity on the part of Republican politicians, but have no such moral code for themselves, are contemptible. And, yes, tODD, I am certain that there were critics of Clinton’s sexual “indiscretions” in the Oval Office who were also hypocrites for the same reason.
That all being said, as events have continued to unfold in the Sanford matter, it is clear that he needs to resign. He is a very troubled man, and needs to devote his time to restoration with his God and with his family. He also owes it to his state to preserve whatever is left of the dignity of his office.
DonS – why does your moral code allow you to slander?
Debs – That is a pretty serious accusation and I think you need to explain what you see as slander. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but that is a pretty strong word.
“Maddow and the other critics who are so quick to fall on moral infidelity on the part of Republican politicians, but have no such moral code for themselves, are contemptible.”
This is the sentence I objected to. He says that Maddow, in particular, has “no such moral code,” meaning, apparently, no code against “moral infidelity.” Fidelity to morals? Or is DonS saying that only a married person can criticize another married man for marital infidelity? The upshot is that Maddow and other unnamed critics of Sanford are being accused of hypocrisy without proof. And DonS himself criticizes Sanford in the last paragraph of his comment.
After following this Sanford affair closely, I agree with Don that Sanford is a deeply troubled man. At this point he is playing a double game of saying that he has met the soul mate of his life while attempting to square this with the Jewish-Christian admonition against adultery. He is, also, making the fundamental mistake of publicly airing a profoundly private matter.
I have admired Sanford’s sound and courageous- mainly fiscal- politics and tried not to be moralistic in assessing him. However, I now see him as essentially a pathetic fuzzy-headed romantic who has done serious damage to his family and his party.
Debs, do you know anything about Rachel Maddow?
Don (@9), you’re apparently taking the fact that Maddow is a lesbian and reading into it that she has no stance whatsoever on cheating on one’s spouse (or, I would add, partner).
In order for this charge of “hypocrisy” against Maddow to work, though, we would need to know specifically what she thinks about being faithful to one’s spouse or partner. Do you, Don? Would Maddow care if her partner was sleeping around with someone else? Does Maddow herself feel free to have sex with people other than her partner? If so, then yes, she’s a hypocrite.
But I rather doubt she’s said as much, or that you have any actual insight into her morals, Don.
“However, I now see him as essentially a pathetic fuzzy-headed romantic who has done serious damage to his family and his party.”
Well said. Romance will have a tendency to do that.
The truth about Rachel Maddow is that she is a bright, attractive, very modern lesbian, a graduate of Stanford and a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD from Oxford. Fundamentally, following modern liberal ideology, she views morality as a matter of opinion and choice. Dr. Veith is correct to cite her as a moral relativist.
In her favor she resents Republicans like Sanford who speak of morality but act and speak otherwise, though she is a hypocrite in that she views morality as a matter of individual choice. She is far from the view that morality is a matter of biblical and moral law.
Peter (@12), “she views morality as a matter of opinion and choice”? And you’ve heard or read her saying this?
Todd, the fact that Rachel Maddow is a lesbian is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence that she views morality as a matter of choice.
Paul addressed this matter in Romans 1: 26-27 as follows:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense ] of their error which was meet.
Peter (@14), “the fact that Rachel Maddow is a lesbian is, ipso facto, sufficient evidence that she views morality as a matter of choice.” Um, no. It’s evidence that she has a different idea of sexual morality than you do, perhaps. But you clearly have no idea what ideas she holds on morality in general, much less that of being faithful to one’s spouse/partner.
Seems like the game here is to note some scarce facts about Maddow, then to assume from those facts some positions that Maddow holds, and then to blame her for hypocrisy as regards those assumed positions. Seems the loving, Christian thing to do.
I mean, no doubt you’d enjoy it if Maddow made assumptions about you and your morals from a few factoids. Which is why your actions here aren’t at all inconsistent by this same standard. (I’m saying the opposite of what I mean in this paragraph, except for the part in parentheses.)
I had long heard that the term “hypocrite” came from Greek and referred to someone who wore a mask in a drama. It could be rendered as “play-actor.” The hypocrite is a moral play-actor, pretending to support values he or she does not support. Generally it involves a discrepancy between public statement and private behavior.
I don’t see how this would apply to Maddow, either, whatever can be said of her moral position. I tend to think that those who don’t hold to Biblical standards because they are in the Bible hold a pretty wide spectrum of positions, from very principled (e.g. Aristotle) to very unprincipled (fill this one in yourself with someone you know well). I have no idea how this works for Maddow.
I’m not sure where our resident homosexual commenter is at the moment (is that like being the token black guy on a jury? jn), but I suspect that most people here who “know” him through comments here would not say he views morality as a mere matter of choice.
So, it seems that saying stuff like “all homosexuals are moral relativists” is a patently false statement. We have at least one exception here in our midst (so to speak).
Here’s what that is like – all Christians are hateful and viciously intolerant.
tODD: I take it that you are now taking up the charge that I am a slanderer on Debs’ behalf.
Twice this week, on this blog, I have been accused of slander/defamation. In neither case has a scintilla of evidence been brought forward to support that very serious charge. One who falsely accuses another of slander is also a slanderer, you know.
Now, if the standard for identifying someone as a hypocrite is truly, as tODD is insisting, that we know, to a certainty, the individual thoughts and beliefs of a person, then may the charge of hypocrisy never again ring forth, as no man can know those things. And, I’m OK with that, as it is seldom Republicans/conservatives who initiate the “hypocrisy” name calling.
Ms. Maddow is an avowed and proud lesbian, who admits to having had multiple sexual partners outside of marriage. She opposes abstinence education (because she considers abstinence “unrealistic”), abortion rights, and gay marriage. Thus, she is clearly an open and unrepentant fornicator. She is openly hostile to Christianity and biblical values. She has never once, to my knowledge, expressed any support whatsoever for the institution of monogamous marriage. Now, Maddow’s position is that Sanford is a bad Christian, and thus hypocritical for promoting Christian values. Whether or not Ms. Maddow, as tODD contends, may have some warped relativistic moral code of her own, she is certainly in no position to make that assertion.
Todd, you ignore the reality that Judeo-Christian morality, both biblical and according to natural law, views homosexual behavior as a disorder of nature and a gravely depraved form of sin. This is not a matter of my, or anyone else’s personal view of morality; it is matter of well established orthodox Christian principle. I note you had nothing to say regarding Paul’s clear view of the depravity of homosexual behavior. Like most liberal Christians you avoid the fundamental matter of the morality of homosexual behavior.
Dr, Veith is correct above that those who favor liberal autonomy and the sanctity of personal choice are on thin ground pronouncing anathema on the likes of Sanford.
Don (@18), you have some nerve.
“Twice this week, on this blog, I have been accused of slander/defamation. In neither case has a scintilla of evidence been brought forward to support that very serious charge.”
You, of all people, are complaining that there is no “evidence” to justify that label. No evidence?! When that very label was used, at least by me, because you yourself are leveling charges at people … without evidence!! Criminy, that reeks.
I don’t know if you’re getting hung up on the legal definition here — you are the one who seemed to be arguing at one point that a non-prosecutable crime wasn’t actually a crime, after all — but “slander” can be used to describe actions that are morally wrong, not merely legally prosecutable. You may not be legally liable for defaming these people, but as a Christian, you are.
And while you seem content to merely assume that I’m “taking up” Debs’ charge, rather than simply reply to Debs, I will let your words condemn you themselves: you said (@4) Maddow has “Maddow and the other critics who are so quick to fall on moral infidelity on the part of Republican politicians … have no such moral code for themselves”.
And what “evidence” do you have that she has “no moral code”, Don? While you demand “evidence” for any labels applied based on what you’ve written (as if your words weren’t enough evidence), you provide no such courtesy for those you glibly … slime? Smear? Defame? Slander?
As to the other instance in which I said you were defaming someone, you said “the anchor of CBS News fabricate[d] a memo (or at least knowingly complie[d] with the fabrication of that memo by his senior producer) to support a story he was running” (comment 34 in “Nixon was not pro-life”). And where is your “evidence” for that, Don? Rather retracted his story, but has not admitted to what you’re accusing him of. CBS reported that their source had misled them about the documents. But you go beyond that. You accuse him of “fabricating” the memos himself or “knowingly complying” with fake memos. Where’s your “evidence”, Don?
And you missed another time I said you defamed somebody. You said “The I.G. was a weenie. … He thought there was some kind of political advantage (favor in the press or whatever) to making a stern pronouncement about how inappropriate political firings of U.S. Attorneys were. It was politics through and through.” (comment 67 on “More Republican vice”) And “the I.G. made the referenced statements because of a perceived political advantage for doing so.” (comment 71, ibid.)
Hey, Don, guess what I’m going to ask for? The same thing you routinely fail to provide when it suits you: evidence. What evidence do you have that the Justice Department Inspector General solely acted for politically expedient reasons?
So don’t whine about how no one has “evidence” for labeling you a slanderer. I’ve just cited you several pieces of evidence. Several pieces more than you’ve been willing to give for those people you have no problem defaming.
tODD: You accuse me, TWICE, of slander, and you then assert, amazingly, that I have some nerve? My assertion about Maddow is not only supported by the evidence, but I seriously doubt she would deny it. She does not have a Judeo-Christian ethic, nor is she a supporter of monogamous marriage. There is nothing controversial about that statement.
Ahh, but then we get to the problem. You didn’t read my comment carefully. I never said Maddow had “no moral code”. Far from it. She clearly has a moral code. It just bears little relationship to a traditional biblical moral code. What I said was “she has no SUCH moral code”. You quoted it properly, but then botched it completely up on the re-quote and application. I stand by the statement. She has no SUCH moral code.
I am under no obligation to supply evidence for every opinion I utter. This is an opinion blogsite, after all. If you don’t like the opinion, fine. Say so, as is your right. But, that doesn’t give you license to throw around charges of slander, without a shred of evidence to prove that my opinions are demonstrably false (which, by the way, despite your moralistic and self-righteous intonations, you have not done).
And it is especially unfortunate (some might say it “reeks”) when you level such an unsupported assertion based on a misreading of the comment at issue.
I think I saw this on another thread — if you don’t like my comments, take it up with Dr. Veith. But I am in no way responsible to you to prove up every opinion I state to your satisfaction.
Don, if that were all that were wrong with your comment (@18), that would be bad enough. But you construct, once again, a strawman out of what I said: “if the standard for identifying someone as a hypocrite is truly, as tODD is insisting, that we know, to a certainty, the individual thoughts and beliefs of a person, then may the charge of hypocrisy never again ring forth, as no man can know those things.”
Geez, Don, how about bothering to quote the lady to back up your (defamatory) assertion that Maddow has no “moral code”? At no point did I demand knowing her secret inner thoughts as a standard. You were, as you so often do, slandering her based on something you almost certainly don’t know. That’s my claim. If you’d like to defend yourself against it, all you have to do is point to a quote of hers in which she agrees that she has no “moral code”. It’s that easy. Otherwise, you’ll look like you’re defaming her without any evidence. And you hate that.
I’m not arguing that I approve of her moral code. But nor would I say she has no morals — frankly, I’m not in a position to ascertain that. Maddow may not support monogamous marriage (although I’m not sure I can trust uncited claims from you anymore, Don), but does she have an opinion on fidelity? Or is she, as you’ve claimed moral-less, without any notion of monogamy? How about lying — does Maddow have a position on lying? That’s certainly an aspect of what she’s pegging Sanford for. Or does she have no moral qualms about lying as well?
Anyhow, this all seems to have turned into a caricature of conservative responses. A Republican is unfaithful to his wife. So what’re we talking about? Why, the media, of course!
Peter (@19), you honestly have no idea what I think about homosexuality. That you feel content to make extremely lazy assumptions and broad assertions — about me, about Rachel Maddow, about whomever — based on the fact that you have categorized me as “liberal” only tells me that you are a lousy mind-reader.
Don (@21), “You accuse me, TWICE, of slander, and you then assert, amazingly, that I have some nerve?” No, I believe I accused you TWICE of “defamation”, and only once of “slander” — though I did not use it in the legal sense.
And Don, you did not make reference in your original comment (@4) to anything about a “Judeo-Christian ethic” or “traditional biblical moral code”, so don’t try to make it about that now. You said, and let me quote extensively:
Now, I kind of think you meant to type “marital infidelity”, but you’ve never said so, so I have to go by what you wrote. But read that statement, Don. Maddow has “no such moral code” regarding infidelity? And how do you know this?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t need to supply evidence for when you slander people. You just expect it when you don’t like what people say about you. Isn’t there a word for people who expect something of other people, but not of themselves? I feel like we were talking about it recently … it’s on the tip of my tongue. … Hmm, I’m sure it’ll come to mind, soon enough.
And I’m sorry, but in what fairy world are you living if you think that the burden is on me to prove false your defamatory claims regarding Dan Rather and the DoJ Inspector General? You can make all the ridiculous claims you want, no matter how un-loving or un-Christian they are. I just don’t find it credible when you whine about getting called on your baseless assertions.
“I am under no obligation to supply evidence for every opinion I utter.” Okay, from a legal standpoint, you’re right. I just kind of thought Christians had a different standard when it came to our neighbors’ reputation. Perhaps you think differently.
tODD, you continue to rail about me saying Maddow has no moral code. I didn’t say that. I said she has “no SUCH moral code”. Meaning, of course, that her moral code is not similar to those of the politicians she is, to use your term, “slandering”. In other words, from all evidence, she does not have a moral code which is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition.
If you are going to label my opinions as “false”, then the burden is certainly on you to prove that they actually are. That is not a “fairy world”, that is the real world.
Now, since you are such a moral and Christian commentator, I will wait for your acknowledgement that much of what you accuse me of is based on your own misreading of what I said.
Todd, then what exactly is your view of homosexuality? How do you square homosexual behavior, including that of Rachel Maddow, with biblical thought? Specifically, do you agree with Paul’s unequivocal statement in Romans 1: 26-27?
I understand that your church, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, teaches the inerrancy of the Bible, including Romans, and that homosexuality is a sin. How do you square this with Rachel Maddow’s choice of sexuality?
tODD @ 24: And, yes, I probably did mean to type “marital fidelity” rather than “moral fidelity”. But I haven’t bothered to correct the record because it’s a really immaterial error. The material error was your reading of my comment as meaning that Maddow had no moral code, rather than that she does not have a traditional moral code, and your launching from that error into a wholesale accusation that I am a “slanderer”.
Peter:
tODD is not interested in telling you what he believes. His interest is in tearing down the opinions of others, in his self-appointed role as Cranach Blog moderator.
Don, I will admit that I misquoted you once (@20). Presumably that, too, will be dismissed by you as a “really immaterial error”, as my last comment (@24) got the quote right and still made my point about your slander. Presumably, when you made your comment (@25), you hadn’t read my last comment.
“If you are going to label my opinions as ‘false’, then the burden is certainly on you to prove that they actually are.” Don, you’re a hoot. You are free to say any old ridiculous thing about anyone — especially those you don’t like — and you are “under no obligation to supply evidence” for them. Make up whatever facts about them you want. Ah, but when I say they’re false, asking you to prove your claims, then you demand that I prove your assertions are false. Or, in simpler form:
Don makes claims, no evidence is needed.
tODD makes claims, evidence is demanded.
Sorry, but it does make you sound like a hypocrite, Don. You demand behavior from me that you don’t believe applies to you.
But at least you close out your series of comments by making yet another false assertion (@28), this time about me. You just can’t stop, can you?
Peter (@26), I do not believe I could say everything I think about homosexuality here, nor do I think you want me to, so suffice it to say that I agree with the WELS teaching on homosexuality, at least as far as I know. (In case it isn’t clear, this answers your questions about inerrancy/Romans/sin as well.)
Why what I believe about it is at all relevant, however, is something you’ll have to explain to me. I don’t even know what it means for me to “square [my and the WELS' position on homosexuality] with Rachel Maddow’s choice of sexuality”.
Now will you tell me what basis you have for saying that Maddow “views morality as a matter of choice”, other than your own assumptions (which were rather inaccurate for me, whom you’ve at least communicated with — I can only imagine how accurate they’ll be for a TV personality you’ve never once talked to)?
As to the original question if there’s any interest any more… when one’s heart is far from their lips. The Pharisees in that they professed trust in God, but as Jesus points out they trusted in their own righteousness. As for Peter in Galatians, I surmise that he knew and believed the truth about God’s grace to the Gentiles, full justification apart from works of the law (including foods), yet gave lip-service to (even further, acted wrongly with) the Judaizers out of fear. But if the definition is acceptable, one must be very careful before laying the charge of hypocrisy since it presupposes actual knowledge of the person’s inner convictions/beliefs… probably unknown more often than not by most. Watcha think?
tODD @ 29: I’m sorry, but I couldn’t make heads nor tails out of your rambling. You have deliberately mischaracterized what I said, repeatedly, in order to make a point that is ridiculous and nonsensical. You still do not appear to even understand my original comment. I know you are not stupid, so it must be intentional.
Don demands evidence of tODD because tODD is asserting ad hominem argument directly against Don. tODD is labeling Don a slanderer and a hypocrite. When Don points out that tODD obviously doesn’t understand the elements of slander, tODD says that he doesn’t mean the real (or legal) definition of slander, but rather one he made up himself. A “moral” kind of slander, which means that if Don asserts an opinion on a blog post, he is required to scour the Internet for proof that his own opinion is true until tODD is satisfied that it is.
And when Don calls tODD on his childish game, tODD calls him a hypocrite and insists that Don has slandered tODD.
tODD, I don’t demand anything of you. I assert my own opinions and you are free to assert your’s. It is only when you slander and label me in an ad hominem fashion that I ask you to back it up.
Now if you want to discuss these issues intelligently, fine. Otherwise, we are done.
MikeD, I absolutely agree!
tODD @ 30: Why do you think that Maddow’s views are so unknowable? She has a radio program, she is on TV every night, and she is the subject of dozens of articles every year. She supports many political causes. Her life is pretty much an open book, and she is clearly a public figure who has willingly entered the fray. Now, as I said earlier, and as MikeD just said above, we cannot know the inner heart of man. So, we can’t know everything about Ms. Maddow. But let us not forget that she was the first one to level the charge of hypocrisy against Sanford and other Republicans. So, her motivations are clearly fair game. And she certainly doesn’t need your protection. She is a big girl. As to whether or not it is “Christian” to label her a hypocrite, well, I don’t think that is black and white. If you don’t think it is right for you, then by all means don’t do it. However, you also shouldn’t judge others on that issue. And if you are judging others on that issue in a vexatious and contentious manner, as you have been on this thread, then maybe you should spend more time evaluating your own actions rather than calling others names.
Don (@32), why is it that when you say things like “we are done”, you don’t mean it (cf. @34)? This happened the last time, when at least you wished me a nice weekend.
I’m truly sorry that you don’t see what you’re doing here. It concerns me that a Christian would find nothing wrong in making baseless assertions meant to slander people’s reputations. The only concern for reputation I see here is for your own. Certainly not Dan Rather’s or the DoJ IG’s.
And you hide behind calling it all “opinion”. As if it was merely a matter of preference to believe that Dan Rather intentionally faked or went along with faked documents. No, Don, you asserted a fact — a baseless fact, but a fact all the same. This isn’t just an “opinion”. And since when do Christians posit a right to believe whatever calumnous thing they want to about people?
And all your talk of “scouring the Internet” makes it sound like you have all this evidence against these people, but you just can’t be bothered to show it to me. Please. You don’t have any base for your assertions. You don’t. You can prove me wrong so easily, but you won’t. You can’t. Baseless.
As to the definition of slander, I realize you’re a lawyer, but for heaven’s sake, man, it’s called a dictionary, and I believe you know how to use it. But since you clearly refuse to, I’ll paste in the definition for you, from Merriam-Webster:
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
And yes, a “moral” kind of slander, indeed. It’s called the 8th Commandment. Heard of it?
“It is only when you slander and label me in an ad hominem fashion that I ask you to back it up.” Yeah, but no such courtesy for Dan Rather, the Inspector General, etc. Hypocrite.
tODD, again, what I said was if you didn’t want to discuss the issues intelligently, then we are done. So, I assume that you don’t wish to discuss the issues intelligently?
While I appreciate your deep concern for my reputation, please allow me to worry about that. You can then spend more time worrying about your own. You can’t even keep straight what I am saying, then, based on your misinterpretations, you make wild accusations. “I’m truly sorry that you don’t see what you’re doing here. It concerns me that a Christian would find nothing wrong in making baseless assertions meant to slander people’s reputations”. Wow. That is rich. If you’re referring to me, I would obviously find doing such a thing to be wrong. But, I’m not doing that. We utterly disagree about the basis for anything I have said here and about the issue of slander, a term that you throw around at will, without any basis in fact or evidence. But you, as a Christian, obviously don’t have an issue with launching accusations of wrongdoing at others at the drop of a hat. I guess these standards you are so concerned about only apply to others.
Have a nice day.
Todd Now will you tell me what basis you have for saying that Maddow “views morality as a matter of choice”, other than your own assumptions (which were rather inaccurate for me, whom you’ve at least communicated with — I can only imagine how accurate they’ll be for a TV personality you’ve never once talked to)?
As Don remarked, Maddow has made herself a public figure; while we can’t plumb the recesses of her heart, we do know a lot about her basic moral views, which hardly fit the Judeo-Christian mold.
In 2007, Shana Swartz wrote up the following quite revealing interview with Maddow at the After Ellen web site.
“When asked whether the other gay freshman was her girlfriend, Maddow laughed and replied, ‘Funnily enough, only one other person was out, and she was not one of the many girls I was sleeping with.’ …
“While she’s adamant about gay people having equal marriage rights, Maddow has strong feelings about the ways gay men and lesbians have of respecting relationships ‘that aren’t dependent on the social-approval stamp that we call marriage.’
“She [Rachel Maddow] pointed out, ‘We’ve come up with ways that we honor and acknowledge and respect each other’s relationships without this one single hoop that everybody has to jump through to become an official couple. I like that about us.’ Which is why she has reservations about getting married.
” ‘I’m for marriage rights in terms of what I want the laws to be,” she explained, “but personally, in terms of how I culturally feel about my community and us losing something when we gain those marriage rights, I’m ambivalent.’ ”
From this revealing interview, we may reasonably assume that Maddow views morality as a matter of choice as opposed to Judeo-Christian moral law. When she speaks about ways to honor others homosexual relationships, one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to catch her meaning.
Dr. Veith at the head of this thread correctly pointed out the real hypocrisy of the moral relativists including Maddow. So far after much huffing and puffing you haven’t come close to refuting this.
You disingenuously ducked an answer to my question regarding your own views on the subject of homosexual behavior. On this and other threads, while never stating so directly, you manage to support those holding a favorable position on homosexual behavior.
Just what wrong assumptions have I made about your position?
Is anybody else troubled by society’s acceptance of the “soul-mate” line of thought? That is a totally un-Christian concept that has crept its way in to our parlance.
Wikipedia says:
“One theory of soulmates, presented by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, is that humans originally consisted of four arms, four legs, and a single head made of two faces, but Zeus feared their power and split them all in half, condemning them to spend their lives searching for the other half to complete them.”
This, and other similar connotations, compel me to avoid the use of this term at all costs.
In her column, Another lie from Sanford. Tick, tick, tick…, Michelle Malkin notes that Sanford had a book deal before Maria-gate hit the fan. Maybe Sanford will devote a couple of chapters to more slobbering about his “soul-mate.”
An earlier column from Michelle Malkin was entitled, “Dear Mark Sanford: Buy a one-way ticket to Argentina already and be gone.”
Does this clown have an administrative staff working for him or not? What have these handlers been doing (other than sending out their resumes)?
BTW, as nutso as Sanford appears to be, he’s still orders of magnitude in stature above our current moonbat-in-chief.
Peter @ 37: I remember that interview, and am glad you found it. I looked for it yesterday and couldn’t find a good link. Maddow has made no secret of her philosophy of life, and that is why it has been amazing to me that tODD has been so contentious about such uncontroversial statements.
Crikey Carl, your last paragraph is just too silly.
Rven some fellow Republican legislators are concerned about Sanford’s mental health.
I feel badly for him, but more badly for his wife and children.
“That’s a troubled man,” said Sen. Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, a longtime Sanford ally who this year became frustrated at Sanford’s refusal to take federal stimulus money. “You can see it in his eyes and his body language. I’m concerned about his mental well-being.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/the-mark-sanford-affair-c_n_224814.html
Don, that interview with Rachel Maddow is at:
http://www.afterellen.com/people/2007/1/rachelmaddow
Todd apparently sees himself as the defender of liberal folk like Maddow against we oppressive and uninformed conservatives. He, also, as you have remarked, is a self appointed moderator of this blog, moderating rather in the way that Clouseau was an Inspector.
Thanks, Peter. Have a great 4th of July, celebrating the still incredible country in which we are privileged to live, and the wisdom and courage of our founding fathers.
Thank you Don, I hope to have a great 4th of July with a neighborhood party and bonfire on the beach in front of our house Friday evening and a family party on Saturday, followed by worship on Sunday. We are indeed blessed and privileged to live in an incredible country with an excellent religious and political foundation.
What I found even more profoundly icky than Sanford’s adulterous affair was his mooning to the world about having found his “soulmate.” Why does he think that anyone even cares? If he indeed wants to repair things with his wife and his four sons, why would he continue mooning? Icky.
I have been introduced in this post to a person named Maddow who appears to disagree with the Bible’s labelling of sin, so she fits right up there (down there?) with the masses of heterosexuals who are also fornicating their eyeballs out. There seem to be many who call Jesus “Savior,” but not many who call sin, sin. Not many at all.
@26 Peter Leavitt
“Specifically, do you agree with Paul’s unequivocal statement in Romans 1: 26-27? ”
Question: Why do you feel that Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuals?
In romans chapter one Paul refers to “them”, ie a clearly identifible group of people. The “them” is consistent throughout that chapter.
My point is this: IF Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuals then EVERYTHING that romans chapter 1 and the start of chapter 2 then describes every homosexual.
So what do we learn about homosexuals IF romans 1 and 2 are the biblical description of ALL homosexuals?
Let´s review (I will take the liberty of substituting the word “homosexuals” wherever “they” appears):
v22 Professing themselves to be wise, homosexuals became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Comentary: Homosexuals became course idolators worshipping the creation in place of the creator.
24 Wherefore God also gave homosexuals up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Comment: CAUSE coarse idolatry. EFFECT God turns over Homosexuals to run free with their “vile affections.” Note that even the women of homosexuals were turned over to this. Would that be their wives? sisters? mothers? Does this picture of crass idolatry and homosexuals having “their women” fit in with the homosexuals you personally know?
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Comment: This is saying exactly: No homosexuals start out sexually as homosexuals, they have a “natural” use for women. Ie: homosexuals start out having sexual attraction for women, but these homosexuals, attracted to women, are also course idolators in addition to liking sex with women, and so, BECAUSE OF THIS IDOLATRY, in punishment for their coarse idolatry, God allows their sexual attractions to turn to other men (“turns then over”), and also turns the women of homosexuals to be attracted to other women. Does this picture the Holy Apostle Saint Paul paints square with the life histories of homosexuals you personally know or know of in other ways?
28 And even as homosexuals did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave homosexuals over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Comment: Whoa baby!
Romans chapter 1 describes ME (because I am a homosexual), thussly:
I know nothing of God
I am …
Unrighteous
Fornicator
Covetous
Malicious
full of envy
murderous
deceitful
malign others
whisper (gossip/)
a Backbiter
I hate God
Despiteful
Proud
a boaster
inventors of evil things
disobedient to parents
Without understanding
I don´t keep any promises or commitments to others
I don´t have a capacity to love anyone (even mom?!) naturally
I am implacable
I am unmerciful
I am Wicked
Peter Leavitt is saying that I am all of these thing because: Romans 1 describes homosexuals, I am a homosexual, therefore everything romans 1 says MUST describe me BY DEFINITION. By saying Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuals. Do the rest of you here agree with him?
Let´s go on to chapter 2 shall we?
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Comment: None Necessary.
Shall we now move on to the sodom and gommorrah story and see if the picture painted there likewise describes ALL homosexuals definitionally?
The story goes like this:
some angels visit Lot. while they are visiting a mob assembles in front of Lot´s house demanding to “know” the visitors. Know can mean know or can mean to have sex with. Because Lot offers his daughters to the mob in place of the angels (not very fatherly…who is worse the mob or lot?), we might conjecture that the word “know” is in the sexual sense, but not for sure.
Comment: If this story is about homosexuals, then we know that your resident homosexual here, along with EVERY OTHER homosexual is , by definition, a sexual predator who would just love to participate in a group rape scene. Does this picture square with what you know about homosexuals you personally know? second question: Where in this story is there anything at all about anal sex? How did the word “sodomy” come to be associated with that sexual practice? By the way, sodomy laws originally applied equally to heterosexuals. There are many homosexuals who practice anal sex. Even married christian couples.
alternative understanding:
the sodom and gomorrah story is about a group of people who wanted to rape some angels or alternatively wanted to use “harsh interrogation techniques” to determine whether or not the angel visitors were in fact scouts or spys for some enemy. The meaning of the text beyond this is indeterminate.
romans 1 alternative understanding:
romans one clearly does not describe homosexuals or the condition of homosexuality per se, because
(1) homosexuals do not start out as heterosexuals and they do not have “their women” as romans one describes the “they” and “those”, and
(2) it seems pretty certain that the condition of homosexuality does not look like what romans 1 describes:
heterosexuals who are practicing course idololatry (worship animals, graven images, etc) and then transition, ALONG with “their women”, to lusting after other men.
(3)most homosexuals cannot be generalized to be any more, or less, prone to “burning with lust for one another” than your typical heterosexual is.
Alternative understanding: Paul starts out describing a “they” that no respectable Jew could ever identify with. He does this as a setup, precisely, for Romans chapter 2:1ff. This fits the general theme of Romans which is “God has condemned ALL so that he might have mercy on ALL”. Romans one has nothing to do with homosexuality per se, and but everything to do with every single homosexual as a human being in exactly the same way it has to do with every heterosexual.
@47 self reference
I DO cop and confess to EVERYTHING on the Romans one list. Including idolatry. ALL my sins seem to start with fearing trusting and loving something material or otherwise more than i fear, love and trust in God.
So what do I do as a homosexual since this IS the truth about me?
I cling to the cross and flee to God in his infinite mercy, and beg for his forgiveness.
I go to church where I can confess these things about me and then get that “one thing needful”:
hear God´s “sent one” tell me “as a called and ordained servant of the word, I forgive you ALL your sins, IN THE NAME OF the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit. I receive the body and blood of Jesus with Jesus´specific command and promise to me. I hold God to his promise he made to me in my baptism in the full face of my being worthy of temporal and eternal punishment. and… I make full use of private confession, where God´s “sent one” ( my pastor) can here my particular sins , in ugly detail, and with his hand on my head, reassure me by personally applying the words of absolute and certain forgiveness here and now that was won by my savior 2000 years ago.
Frank, I should suggest that you read the following brief article, Homosexuality: Rebellion Against God
A scholar of Paul explains how the great Apostle understood–and decried–homosexuality. by the biblical Paul scholar. Richard B Hays on the subject of homosexuality, among, to be sure, other sins that are adduced by Paul as a sign of rebellion to God. He sum up his argument:
The aim of Romans 1 is not to teach a code of sexual ethics; nor is the passage a warning of God’s judgment against those who are guilty of particular sins. Rather, Paul is offering a diagnosis of the disordered human condition: he adduces the fact of widespread homosexual behavior as evidence that human beings are indeed in rebellion against their creator. Homosexuality, then, is not a provocation of “the wrath of God” (Rom. 1:18); rather, it is a consequence of God’s decision to “give up” rebellious creatures to follow their own futile thinking and desires.
He, also, movingly discusses his homosexual classmate at Yale, dying of AIDS:
The more we talked, the more we found our perspectives interlocking. Both of us had serious misgivings about the mounting pressure for the church to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As a New Testament scholar, I was concerned about certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists. As a homosexual Christian, Gary believed that their writings did justice neither to the biblical texts nor to his own sobering experience of the gay community that he had moved in and out of for 20 years.
You are on distinctly poor ground using Romans as an apology for homosexual behavior.
Missouri Synod Lutherans hold that
the Word of God clearly condemns homophile behavior in Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, and 1 Cor. 6:9; and the Synod recognize homophile behavior [in though word, and deed] as intrinsically sinful”.
As an admitted homosexual, Frank has repeatedly promoted his blasphemous and evil perversions on this blog site. Rather than express repentance for such weakness in this particular immorality, Frank wallows in such homosexual debauchery with his heretical eisegesis, as if he might persuade or convert readers to agree with his views of homosexual desires and practices. Frank’s writings show no concern from the warning from our Savior:
“Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. [Luke 17:1-3]
Frank, your obscene and hell-spawned excrement defiles this Christian blog. Such homosexual advocacy on this blog has been anti-Christian.
Readers who are Christian parents are warned to monitor their children’s access to this blog as long as the sodomizing excretions of Frank continue to ooze onto the threads of this blog.
#51 peter leavitt and #52 carl vehse
Peter: what specifically (meaning please do quote me directly!) do you find in error with my analysis of Romans 1 and the sodom and gomorrah story? That is what is on the table now between us. With kindest respect peter: what have you accomplished by referring me to some book that can´t be found here in Brasil. Do you think that you are able to show me to be wrong on the basis of scripture alone? “Come let us reason togeather.”
Carl: whew. Point out to me the specific error or errors that are contrary to Holy Scripture in my posts #s 47-50. I don´t think I have ever been attack quite so ferociously anywhere. “hell-spawned excrement…..sodomizing excretions….”.
What do you or the LCMS document you quote define as “homophile behavior” Carl? How does it define who is or is not a “homosexual”? What does the word “intrinsic” add to the statement (ie if the word “intrinsic” were removed, how would it change the meaning of the sentence?). this is not at all obvious to me.
God bless you Carl. cf. romans 2:1 please. in context.
@51 peter leavitt
I apologize! I did not see that you were linking to an article.
I read it carefully
Unfortunately it does not address any of my specific points other than to claim that romans one is the only place where homosexuality is addressed “theologically” (whatever he means by that) in the bible.
he unfortunately makes no attempt at showing exactly how he feels romans 1 is about homosexuality and does not address any of the points I made. Can you google and find something else that does specifically address my points or maybe give a go at your own self raising objections to the points I made without resorting to a web search that really does not address my post meaningfully or specifically Peter?
#52 carl vehse:
carl I don´t have sex (not in thought word or deed…)
So what is it I am saying or doing other than admitting that I AM a homosexual, that makes you say such terrible things about me and what I have said?
I did confess here in fact that I am guilty of all the things listed in romans 1, just as you are. Romans 2:1 requires both you and I to make that confession does it not?
#55 carl vehse
In view of my simple and short comments, how does the LCMS feel that romans one could be about homosexuals our homosexuality?
romans one seems to describe some group labelled “they” who are coarse idolator heterosexuals. they have women so…!(wives? girlfriends? daughters?), and because they were idolators, God turns them AND their women over to “burning with lust ” for the same gender.
Does this look like any homosexuals you personally know or have read about?
Frank, in Romans 1:26-27,Paul clearly refers to what he terms the vile and unnatural affections of women who had sexual relations with women and men with men. I cited the biblical scholar, Richard B Hays simply because he and his gay classmate had come to the conclusion that gay people, like yourself, are involved in quite mistaken biblical exegesis to advance their personal and political agendas.
Carl Vehse is right that you are involved on this blog promoting the perversion of homosexual behavior. You sometimes imply that you are involved in such behavior that is then forgiven by your minister; at other times you deny such behavior while claiming to be a born homosexual. There is nothing in biblical literature that views homosexuality as an accepted orientation.
@57 peter leavitt.
Ok peter. romans one refers to heterosexuals “they” who , because of their idolatry , God allows them AND THEIR WOMEN to trade in their “natural” use/affections for something else and has the men lusting after each other.
So I ask you, since you claim to have gay friend the following:
how many gay men do you know that have women, and both they and their women turn homosexual at the same time? I am sure we could find a case of this somewhere, but does this seem typical or clinically definitional in any way?
Does this seem to describe any homosexuality you have observed or even read about Peter? come on now….
Instead of referring to someone else, would you please do the kindness of actually engaging the question I am posing to you here?
Frank, you’re confusing the straightforward truth in Romans 26-27 that God has abandoned the men [from Corinth] who have sexual relations with men and women with women. Paul, while fully understanding of God’s grace for truly repentant sinners, firmly believed in a moral universe that condemned the sin of what we call today homosexual behavior.
Your question is illogical in that Paul is hardly referring in your terms to homosexual men or women who lie naturally with the opposite sex and then queerly lie with the same sex. This is simply a figment of your imagination.
#59 Peter Leavitt. r.e.a.d. the biblical text please.
“Paul is hardly referring in your terms to homosexual men or women who lie naturally with the opposite sex and then queerly lie with the same sex.”
v26 for even THEIR women (the women of the homosexuals in verse 27?) did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, LEAVING the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.
This text clearly says that the “they” who you say are homosexuals, (A) have women. (B) the women of those men in v27 “changed” from what? heterosexuality? and (C) the men, LEFT the natural use of women. they left behind being the heterosexuals that they were. How is this a wrong reading of this text Peter??!! break it down for me. correct me. but don´t ignore the text. You are smarter than that! you are simply not that stupid Peter.
This is simply a figment of your imagination.
Frank, Paul in that [KJV] passage says that “God gave them up into vile affections; even the women left the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men , leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another.”
Paul clearly understood that the natural sexual use of the body, according to moral law, has to do with men and women coming together ultimately for the purpose of bearing and nurturing children, something treated best in Genesis.
It is true that in other parts of Romans Paul refers to assorted forms of unrighteousness with which men and women become involved. However, in twenty-six and seven he adduces homosexuality as a particularly egregious form of behavior that comes when God abandon people who have become reprobate in mind and imagination.
I understand that a lot of nonsense has been written by homosexual apologists who have twisted the meaning of the clear biblical admonitions against homosexual behavior and that this has been accepted as politically correct by many of those in academia, the media, and the arts who presently command the heights of our culture. I’m, also, well aware that my position has been judged by many to be that of a homophobic bigot. As Auden once said, “I’m inclined to think with deRougemont it will back to the catacombs for all of us.” [orthodox Christians]
Peter, as you may be coming aware, it’s not much use in trying to reason with Frank.
Whether or not a symptom of ADC (AIDS Dementia Complex) Frank has for some time exhibited an apparent obsession and compulsion to defend and promote homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle on various Cranach threads. Lately Frank’s condition seems to have gotten worse.
#61 peter leavitt:
you have misquoted the KJV in the precise point that I raised. the text does not say “the” women peter, the text says “their” women. Look:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even THEIR women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another
This chapter would need to be titled: “homosexuals and their women”. This makes no sense does it?
You misquoted Peter: “Frank, Paul in that [KJV] passage says that “God gave them up into vile affections; even THE women left the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men , leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another.”
#62 carl vehse
Do you know how to read? care to comment on my post #63 in some intelligent way that would demonstate that you can in fact read and have comprehension skills carl?
#61 Peter Leavitt
by the way. THANK YOU for actually now engaging me directly with the very text that we are debating the meaning of.
Only now can we have a meaningful discussion.
I will be very very interested in your reply!
I suspect that Vehse himself feels homosexual attractions and is objecting so violently because he is repressing himself, or something like that.
I’d give that a 30% probability. Not definite, but certainly possible.
#62 carl vehse
Dear brother carl. I repent that I was snide towards you in my post #64. It was uncalled for and unworthy. Will you please forgive me for having a bad attitude in that post.
Carl, I would like to point out two things:
You will find NO post here where I say that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is not sinful.
You will find various postings where I have, in fact, asserted that sex outside if marriage IS sinful.
So I would sincerely like to know exactly where, based on Holy Scripture, you are calling me out as a heretic, and scripturally in error.
I would further like to know what it is about my “lifestyle” that you find offensive and why?
Especially since the only things you know about my “lifestyle”, if you have read my posts, is that: I regularly attend a church that is in full fellowship with the LCMS, go to private confession and the divine service regularly. I take the holy supper as often as it is offered. I do matins and vespers every day. I pray the catechetical table prayer at each meal. I live in the rhythm of death and resurrection evening to sleep and morning to wake. I claim the title “vice-chief” of sinners (only because the holy apostle St Paul has cornered the “chief of sinners ” title). I am also gay.
what is a “lifestyle” anyway? what would be a afro-american or caucasian or heterosexual “lifestyle”?
Point out my sin or sins using holy scripture and I will repent and con-fess if those scriptures apply to me and sins I have or are committing. I would welcome that.
Yes Carl. I am suggesting that you have stepped more than a little outside of the bounds of the way a christian should use words and I am asking you to change your attitude towards me.
Will you please consider that. I am not saying I am any better than you. I am far worse. Can I please as “kettle” ask “pot” to try to lighten up just a little?
sincerely,
frank
more on romans:
St Paul uses words like the women OF the (homosexual or heterosexual? do homos have THEIR women?) men in women “changing their natural use”. Whatever that means….just how are women “used”? try THAT word in a context with YOUR woman…..
secondly st paul states that “they” “the men” LEAVING the natural use of women, burned with lust for one another.
What St Paul explicitly says is “women leaving their natural use” and men “leaving the natural use of women buring with lust for one another.”
What Paul MIGHT IMPLY further is that there is some wierd sexual stuff going on with the men in romans one AND THEIR women. Maybe they were hitting “craigslist” and going to swingers and wife swapping parties? We can conjecture, but this part we really don´t know EXPLICITLY do we? This part is not explicit or stated is it? It probably is about a whole lot more than sex. If you home in on the implied sex part, then that is probably a rhorshack test that implies more about you than it illuminates the text in any useful way. This is like saying that someone treats their wife as an object. Ok. The implication seems certain that this involves sex. But that is probably the very least of things yes?
Is burning with lust, even men towards women, ever in any biblical sense “natural” or “honorable”?
What the Holy Apostly EXPLICITLY says, he says by way of illustration to make a point. Should we then make this chapter about something that is implied (even strongly so) as the MAIN point of this chapter? I think to do so is to miss the MAIN point.
Which I humbly suggest is this progression of thought:
The “they” in Romans one became what we call theologically “coarse idolators” (worshipers of wood and stone and animals etc…). AS A RESULT, the idolator becomes himself the idol. Idolatry on steroids if you will… THEN…
THEIR WOMEN ( The women OF the “they” the “men” that Romans One is talking about) are stand-ins representing all of creation. the consequence of men turning bad, in turn infects and twists all the rest of creation. Adam fell, then came thorns and thistles, then the animals, after the flood, become carnivorous and men are no longer vegitarians as they were pre-flood. the world starts to creak and age and move towards it´s death.
Finally, this is all a set-up directed at pious Jews who would NEVER be coarse idolators. Saint Paul brings them to repentance in chapter 2 verse 1. Gotcha!
Frank, your interpretation of Romans is rather self-servingly queer, twisted, and unworthy of discussion.
WebMonk, your speculative remark about Carl is the sort of pop psychologizing that is abominable, however viciously used these days by the apologists for homosexuality.
#69 Peter Leavitt. the fact remains that you misquoted romans and can´t explain why romans refers to “they”, who you say are homosexuals and also refers to “their ” women.
homosexuals and their women. romans 1:26 strange…
so you lost the argument when we turned to the actual text of romans and now you are going to just make a rude comment to finish things off.
Ok. now I know …..
Peter, get your funny-bone adjusted.
Vehse speculated about fws suffering from delusions caused by a horrible disease. I speculated about Vehse suffering from delusions caused by intense repression.
Lighten up!
Frank, I grant the misquote of Romans, though the difference between “the” and “they” is trivial. In that passage of Romans 1 Paul is unmistakably referring to the reprobate behavior of both men and women who, contrary to natural law, burn for the same members of their sex.
WebMonk, this is not a funny matter. When you assert that Carl’s views of homosexuality are based on his own possible homosexual tendencies, you are involved in a rather vicious and ignorant slur.
I will not be able to continue this discussion next week, as I will be intensively occupied on a business trip to China.
#72 peter. wow you really didnt read. the women in romans one are refered to as the women OF the men you say are homosexual.
the difference is between the and their.
the women as opposed to what the kjv says which is THEIR women. in vs26 . this is not trivial is it? do homosexuals you know have !their women?
do not take offense but are you dyslexic peter? I have other friends who are. this is the 3rd time you misread this passage so just wondering….
Peter, this is not a funny matter. When Vehse asserted that fws’s views of homosexuality are based on his own possible fatal illness, he was involved in a rather vicious and ignorant slur.
I LOVE that this whole conversation happened in a post about hypocrisy!!!!