I see Lucia has done a post on this as well, but I had to write something after just having seen this afternoon's One News and Russell Norman's statement that,
Liberals seem to have this idea that if everything is done under the umbrella of "love" then it's OK. They have their own definition of what exactly this "love" is though; ignoring God's rules and making their own. They keep on adding more letters to it as well (at the moment it is LBGT, and Q). Those are the liberal definitions of love we have to all be 'tolerant' of - for the moment at least.
They then have the temerity (as in Norman's case) to use the Bible to make their case? Really? Show me Russell where it says in the Bible that God supports homosexual activity, and I will show you where it is condemned (including Romans 1, 26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9).
This is not to say that God hates or dislikes gays. Jesus loves everyone but that doesn't mean He approves of all our actions, especially those that the Bible (His law) condemns as being wrong. When He forgave the woman caught committing adultery, He told her, 'go, and sin no more'. God is our Father and we are His children. As earthly parents we love our kids but don't agree with every action they do, either.
Even Norman would have to agree that certain kinds of 'love' (a relationship between a man and an underage girl, polygamy, bestiality etc) are illegal - those are the types of love we don't have to be tolerant of - yet.
I'm not sure I agree with Colin Craig suing Norman over his previous comments, but I am sick to death of hearing the total rubbish coming from liberals like Norman.
"[Colin Craig] says he's Christian, well, Jesus Christ - if he believed in anything, he believed in love, tolerance and inclusion, not the politics of hatred that Colin Craig is promoting [...] Colin Craig should apologize to all new Zealanders for his disgusting and offensive comments. Let's live in a society of tolerance and inclusion - and love. That, surely, is what the Christian message, interpreted the best way, is all about"This angered me - a lefty socialist spouting off about what he thinks Jesus believed, when the Bible - God's own word - clearly points to homosexual conduct being wrong, in both the Old and New Testaments. When Norman talks about the Christian message, "interpreted the best way", he means interpreted the progressive, liberal way - Norman's way.
Liberals seem to have this idea that if everything is done under the umbrella of "love" then it's OK. They have their own definition of what exactly this "love" is though; ignoring God's rules and making their own. They keep on adding more letters to it as well (at the moment it is LBGT, and Q). Those are the liberal definitions of love we have to all be 'tolerant' of - for the moment at least.
They then have the temerity (as in Norman's case) to use the Bible to make their case? Really? Show me Russell where it says in the Bible that God supports homosexual activity, and I will show you where it is condemned (including Romans 1, 26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9).
This is not to say that God hates or dislikes gays. Jesus loves everyone but that doesn't mean He approves of all our actions, especially those that the Bible (His law) condemns as being wrong. When He forgave the woman caught committing adultery, He told her, 'go, and sin no more'. God is our Father and we are His children. As earthly parents we love our kids but don't agree with every action they do, either.
Even Norman would have to agree that certain kinds of 'love' (a relationship between a man and an underage girl, polygamy, bestiality etc) are illegal - those are the types of love we don't have to be tolerant of - yet.
I'm not sure I agree with Colin Craig suing Norman over his previous comments, but I am sick to death of hearing the total rubbish coming from liberals like Norman.
Actually Fletch, you missed the "inter-sex." Its LGBTiQ.
ReplyDeleteWell said, totally agree.
ReplyDeleteWell, if Christians didn't want lefty socialists expressing opinions on what Jesus said, they shouldn't have made us sit through it at school. From that schooling, I don't recall Jesus expressing an opinion either way on homosexuality, but he had plenty to say on the topics of loving your fellow humans and extending that love to the kind of people that 'whited sepulchres' have a problem with. So what's the problem with Russel Norman mentioning it?
ReplyDeleteGood post, Fletch. The more, the merrier.
ReplyDeleteI think Russel must be thinking of Hippie Jesus, the one who preaches love and tolerance, but doesn't have a Cross.
LOL, thanks. I thought there was other letters but I wasn't sure what they were.
ReplyDeleteSelective memory perhaps?
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back. I miss your blog - will it be up and running soon.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you this year. I miss your blog - when are you commenting again?
Well, loving a person or people doesn't mean agreeing with everything they do. Also, the Bible doesn't record Jesus saying anything about shooting up drugs either, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't agree with that. One of the things that is unique about the Catholic Church is that Catholics believe in the teaching authority of the Magisterium. We learn through the Church Tradition and the Scripture. We believe that Jesus gave authority to Peter and his successors (the Popes) to guide and instruct the faithful. That is one of the things that is unique, as I said.
ReplyDeleteI've seen TV programmes about people returning to the Catholic Church from other churches, and one of the reasons they give is that other churches differ on teaching. One church can teach one thing, and one church could teach another. Even pastors in the same church might not agree on certain things and one might split away to form a new church. Where then is a person to go for the truth?
It says in 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
So, it isn't solely through the Bible, but through Scripture and Tradition.
Thus the Church can guide and teach the faithful on modern things like abortion, contraception, gay marriage, and the like.
uhm, fletch the catholics are one to talk about love... all of the sex scandals and thats just the bishops etc... Look at your 'infallible' popes who have been engaged in some of the most vile atrocities ever commited. THAT SAID FROM A CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT, we believe in the same things the BIBLE teaches so please, quit the snobbery, because if you think you'll win by yourself - you are mistaken. Accept your christian brothers and sisters or we will be destroyed one by one... If you read 2 Thes 2:15 you would understand he is talking bout the evanglical preaching and the letters of Paul, Not your so called tradition which came at least 300 years after the last disciple died buddy.
ReplyDeleteyou may also forgot Jesus said, it is better to buy a sword then to buy a cloak
ReplyDeleteNathanial,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are not accusing Fletch (and me and the other Catholics on this blog) of anything when you say, "the catholics are one to talk about love", because it certainly looks like you are.
The problem with Russel mentioning it is that he uses the idea like a bludgeon.
ReplyDelete"You should love your enemies" (Whack). "Even when they spread falsehoods about you" (Thump) "You should turn the other cheek" (Thwack). "Are you ready to forgive me now?" (Kick)
The great thing about lefty socialists is they can never act immorally, because they don't have any morals. (Oh, is that the same as asserting that Colin Craig goes around saying a women's place is in the kitchen? But...but...it's true I tell you.)
[The above is just a hypothetical comment, and any resemblance to persons alive, dead or green is purely coincidental. ]
Well, I think the "hippie Jesus"is preferable to the jesus most xtians seem to believe in.
ReplyDeleteHow's this for an example of xtianity?
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 is says when he comes back, he’s coming back as what? A warrior. A might warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe … I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies ’cause he’s coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.
And I believe now – I’ve checked this out – I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.
Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? … From the Founding Fathers, it’s in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples ‘now, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’
I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you’re going to have to fight at times. You won’t build my kingdom with a sword, but you’re going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that’s where the whole thing came from. I can’t prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that’s where it came from.
And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical.
Good ol boy Jerry Borkin, of the "Family Research Council and fundi xtian fruitloop.