ChristiansUnite Forums

Just occurred to me, the gay rights thing is the "Krystallnacht, 1938" for the American Christian.  The Supreme Court decision in June this summer, not to mention other gay-related victories this year,  overturning sodomy laws in the remaining 12+ states has literally overnight changed the climate here.

Virtually overnight, an invisible "dictatorship" where you only say anything at your peril.  An unspoken caveat to keep our mouths shut.

The gays will be willing to stage violence in order to make it look like the "anti-gays"(more specifically, Christians) did the violence(arson, etc.).  Most law-abiding "citizens" in the interest of their own situations, will increasingly go along with them, just in order to abide by the law.  This is how they framed the Jews in late 30s Germany.

Added to this will be the further complication that some of the accusations will be undoubtedly true--there will no doubt be some reactionary types--"rednecks", "homophobes", fanatics, etc.--who will in fact resort to outright violence "against gays".

But underneath it all, there will no doubt be a collective, perhaps even well-thought-out and sophisticated effort to isolate, "ghetto-ize"(as with the Warsaw Jews), and erase or otherwise sanitize any Christian voice whatsoever--at least any Christian voice that dares to renounce homosexuality.

The Christians had their chance--freedom of the press, freedom of speech, these resent years.  Even the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.,  refuse to come out and actually renounce gay behavior.

A few Christian ministers have.

Good work Sym.

With your permission I would like to reproduce this at another site.

H

Well done, Sym.  You're right.  As Christians, we have given up ground for decades.  At one time, the entire nation was founded on Christian principles.  Slowly we gave up ground on issues like abortion, prayer in schools, etc., by not speaking up.  Now we are in a little bitty ghetto corner, where from when we speak we are given a resounding "Shut up!" and firm back hand across the face.

Hi, Mr. 5020.  Yes, Hitch, that's fine.

tbs, I don't recall specifically mentioning a Gene Robinson in my post above.

Speaking of "fascism", it seems fairly well established that Adolf Hitler himself murdered to cover his own gay tracks.  A researched and fairly well authenticated book has been published to that effect.  I can refer you.

Another argument goes that the Death Camp category of Homosexuals was a population of the gay effeminate types, used as the whipping boys for the dominant gay Nazis--known as "butches".  Outwardly homosexuality of course was anathema to the Nazi cause, since Naziism promoted large families to facilitated breeding of a superior race, which gayness would thwart.

But covertly it seems the Nazis themselves were...ummm...

And check out Hermann Goering.  Waltzing around in pink ladies apparel?  Is that true?

Or just on the evil side alone, just type in the words, "Josef Mengele" into your search engine.  

But in my above post here earlier, I don't see any mention of a "Gene Robinson" at all.

the pointlessly draconian laws governing their private behaviour removed and the social persecution that is aimed at them is being tamed.  


Pointlessly?--adultery, abortion, homosexuality, bestiality?--


"You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her.  

--Adultery is simply do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you, tbs.  You don't want someone stealing your partner, do you?  Prohibition against adultery is simply the Goldern Rule--or are we throwing out the Goldern Rule too??

You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God:  I am the Lord.

Ditto.  Do unto these little children, as you would have done unto you--if you were a child.  No one aborted you, tbs.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Prohibited.  In the same way even though there isn't anyone else around at an intersection, you still stop.  Why?  There isn't anyone else around.  No one's getting hurt.  Why isn't it okay just to ignore the stop sign??

And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither whall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it:  it is perversion."  (Lev. 18:21-23)

Ditto.  Prohibited.  (Surely you "agree" with that one.  Tho' on network news last December 28 year old male arrested doing it to sheep at a live public Nativity scene...).

Unless of course you don't honor scripture.  Then all of the above--even the Golden Rule, does not apply.

And, if those don't apply, then why are you here--on this website--ostensibly "Christian"(it says so in the name), and if Christian, then we hold true to HIs wonderful Gospel--the Good News, which He purchased for us by his blood, and to the Scriptures as handed down to us, which includes those of both Old and New Testaments...

You are accusing God of being draconian, and persecuting you "socially"?  

Yes, tbs,  your reply would befit the Satanic model of the accuser of the brethren and the accuser of God himself--as referred to in  the books of Job and Jude.  

And this is "private" behavior?  Hmm, network news again, last week gays in NY state parks swapping in the parking lots, going off to perform.  AIDS on the increase among young male AfroAmerican college students, and as a badge of honor?

[quote author=blackeyedpeas link=board=4;threadid=1014;start=0#msg13741
Anyone who honors the Scriptures on the subject of gay behavior would quickly determine it is a sin, an abomination, and the prescribed punishment in the Old Testament was stoning to death. If the gays think their open sin and abomination is going to be accepted and respected, they are one fry short of a happy meal. Respect and acceptance can't and won't be legislated.


SPOT ON
 :)

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Kind of hard to do, isn't it? Homosexuals who believe they are without sin are in danger of hellfire. Scripture clearly states homosexuality as sin, and if you are going to deny this, then you might as well deny the existence of God while you're at it. Why would God impose such a law on humans? Perhaps He has the right, as the author of humanity, to make the rules. Perhaps He has our safety from disease in mind. Perhaps He wants His people to preserve the form of family that He intended. Adam was lonely, and God did not give him an animal as a mate. He did not give Him another man. He saw that is was "not good for man to be alone," and He gave him woman. Man was empty, there was something missing from his life, and God created the perfect counterpart, the other half of the jigsaw puzzle. The 2 became one. God made marriage of man and wife to be a fulfilling and joyful thing. Just say for a moment, that God has not clearly stated in Scripture that homosexuality is a sin. Please tell me what *good* comes from it? God works in all things for the good of those who love Him. Marriage is good, two halves become a whole. Sex between (married) male and female is good, was meant to be, and creates new life. If God meant for male and male to unite, the human race would not exist, or men would be made to give birth. Think about it people! Compare your ideas to the word of God, please!
Back to my original point, let me remind everyone that *everyone* who thinks they are without sin is in danger of hellfire. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Let us be like Moses, who chose "rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin." My prayer is that homosexuals will turn to Christ and leave their sin. I pray that Christians will not be fooled into the worldview that any and every lifestyle we choose is OK. I also pray that we will all look in our own lives and see where we may be pleasing our own sinful nature instead of glorifying God. May He continue to lead His people in the right paths. Praise the name of the Lord!

Oklahoma Howdy to Lizmom,

I enjoyed your post. The sin of gay acts and acts with animals have the same punishment in the Old Testament, stoning to death. Some confuse the command to love them with tolerance, respect, and acceptance. Yes, we are to love them and attempt to bring them to Christ. If they stop, repent, and ask Jesus Christ to become their Lord and Saviour, they will be accepted.

In Christ,
Tom

ebia:  Shame that there are other ways of interpreting scripture - you just have to look a bit more closely and stop taking everything at face value.

Symph:  Hmmm.  How do you interpret a stop sign, ebia?


ebia: Why?  That just doesn't follow.

Symph:  If you can't take a "stop sign" literally, ebia, why take any of the rest literally--like, "do unto others..."?  Homo'y is verboten numerously in the OT; and in the New.  And even if it isn't, it falls under "immorality"(i.e., fornication), which was one of the four prohibitions that the Apostles there in Acts did agree upon, to begin the new church.  The only way out of that one, is to get it under protection of marriage--which interestingly then creates the unwitting implication that if you're unmarried when you do commit acts of homosexuality, then you are prima facie admitting that homosexuality is immoral(otherwise, why would you be seeking the protection and sacrement of "marriage"--marriage simply gives God and community their blessing on what otherwise by definition is fornication, or immorality).  

I wouldn't be too hard on her(or him).  She/he has a lot to think about.

But on 5020's point, also, we all would like Jesus' gift free of charge--and of course it is that--the free gift of eternal life.

But also, there is the cross, and we would like to have Jesus but without that cross.  Understandable, but not really the total picture.

But b/c of the cross, and the suffering thereon, there also then is a war--thus Jesus' reaction there with the moneychangers--a very real reality!  

Many of us would not like to admit to that.

'Hope you can come back, Wanderer....

   :)

Ok, maybe my comment was a little snide. I am sorry that a fellow Christian would think we were loveless. I don't want to be perceived that way. But it is true that many Christians fall into accepting the sin while they "love" the sinner. I just don't think it's very loving to agree with people (homosexuals) as they disillusion themselves about God and how He has told us to live. I'm sorry that Wanderer was so disturbed by our discussion, but I'm sure that God is using this very discussion to work in the heart of Wanderer and each and every one of us. I, for one, need these reminders to be more loving, and to follow the Word more precisely. Iron sharpening iron.

I look at it this way.  Is it more loving of a family to let a person continue to abuse alcohol of drugs?  Or to confront them about their problem and get them to deal with it?

I know the answet and I hope more people do as well.  I have seen what happens to people who the famliy just lets go on in their "secular" sinful life (even unsaved people have some semblance of conduct though it grows slimmer all the time).

If you love your child you would scold them and correct them of their wrong doing, at least if you love them.  There are many verses about it but this one stands out the most because of what it says about someone who does not dicipline their child.  Pr 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

This same principle applies to us as children of God as well and it is even stated that if we are not chastened we should question our salvation.

Who said anything about shouting and considering the topic it would be the same as you telling the alcoholic they were born that way so it's ok.  Go ahead and get drunk again.  That what allowing the sin of homosexuality is.  God says it's an abomination and it's a choice not a gene.  You may have to yell at some people anyway just to get them to listen at first.  Denial runs rampant with alcoholics and drug users and 90% of the time you have to let them hit rock bottom before they want help.  Otherwise you are stuck yelling at them and forcing them to do things.  

Although if they had Jesus, their problems with such things would be quite easy to overcome.  The modern world thinks you need to blame everyone else for how you are.  This is a bunch of bunk.  

This is true, yet out of context.  I definitely would deal with a homosexual with more understanding love then I do on these boards.  But on these boards, I am not dealing with homosexuals.  I am dealing with ignorant, non-Bible believing, deceived Christians that are fulfilling: "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge."

Oklahoma Howdy to Mr. 5020,

I think if you ran a poll that the vast majority of the Christians using Christians Unite would take the Holy Bible to the letter on this subject. We are not living under the law or the punishment would be stoning to death. I have and will talk to gays about accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. However, I would not tip toe around the subject, rather I would tell it like it is. It is an abominable sin. It was a death sentence offense, comparable only to the worst crimes.

I've seen the argument that everyone is a sinner, even a Christian in moments of weakness. However there is a big difference between a Christian stumbling, confessing, and asking forgiveness and someone who lives an open and abominable lifestyle on purpose, without remorse, and continuing with no intention of stopping and trying to obey God. If a person wishes to continually walk in darkness, Jesus Christ isn't there. If they wish to come to Jesus Christ, they will have to walk into the light.

There is no comparison between imperfect Christians trying to walk in the light and those who love and wallow in darkness. This is not the first discussion of this topic here. I will do everything I can to help a gay person and bring them to Christ. My attempt was and is in Christian love, but they will know DEFINITELY that I DO NOT accept, respect, or tolerate the gay lifestyle. Those who think they can continue this lifestyle and gain respect and acceptance are wasting their time. It really boils down to walking in the dark or walking in the light.

In Christ.

ebia:
You don't turn someone off drugs, or solve alcoholism, by shouting at them that they are evil.  You do it by understanding where they are at, why they are doing what they are doing, gaining their trust, etc, etc.  Harrasment and verbal abuse is highly unlikely to solve the problem

Symph:  Well, for drugs or alcoholism, the easiest way to remedy that would be to cut off the supply. ;D  Easier said than done, though, with both of those supply lines being so money-related.  There's good money in alcohol; and there's BIG money in drugs.

But with promiscuity, where the offense involves another person, you can't very well rid the world, or at least your world, of other people!!

So, you have to otherwise curb that appetite.  Now let's see, how does one do that?

Hmmm.  (scratches wooden head...)

I've heard this theory many times, and I've always wondered something when I've heard it.  Maybe I'll finally get an answer.  What do you know about the living Word outside of the written word?

grebe: Lust and love, what's the difference? One makes it sound dirty. I'm just saying it doesn't feel dirty. If you love someone and you want to show them you love them, so you buy a present or cook a meal or give them a massage or hold them gently. When does it stop being good and start being bad? I can't tell.

symphony:  Well, for starters, if that someone is someone else's spouse--which nevertheless happens all the time precisely for that reason, grebe, because at no one stage of the game does it really "feel" wrong--esp. if the two are lusting after each other(lust--selfish about the other; love--caring about the other(including, if they are already promised to someone else)).

If it's the same sex, really for similar reasons as above--that is, "invisible" reasons--for the same reason you still stop at a stop sign though no one else is within sight--purely for "invisible" reasons(but that do nevertheless manifest themselves physically--such as a traffic ticket, or a bad accident, or with adultery a jealous spouse with shotgun in hand, etc. or, in the case of same sex promiscuity, std's(or there too a jealous expartner, etc.) or in the case where your same sex partner comes "pure" and with no strings attached, the mere fact it's forbidden(tho it doesn't take much to figure out why God forbids it, that is, homosexually, under the guise of "genuine love", as you imply it, still doesn't deliver what it promises--that is, the "fruits" of that genuine love--i.e., "children"(rug rats, crumb crunchers... ;D)--but on the contrary, only delivers aloneness, nongrowth, addiction and, in the end, "desolation", the biblical identifier, at least it would certainly seem, of the antichrist himself(it would only make sense that the antichrist would fit that role, being "anti", the opposite of everything good, it only makes sense that the admonition by God to "...go forth and mulitiply" in Satan's dictionary would mean let's make the world and universe completely desolate--which is what homosexuality does--it's lustful nature leads one down the road of non-multiplication, non-fruit, and lusting after one another for one's own sake--ingrown, intro-verted, narcissistic).

Yes, Mr. 5020, I've wondered about that too, tbs's statement that, "I do not believe that the text itself is the "word" of God."

Well, that makes it all very convenient.

"Yes, officer, I saw that stop sign back there.  But I don't  think it's vested with any real authority.  So I don't  pay any attention to stop signs."

(Let's see if blackeyedpeas here takes a fancy to this one--hehe)

    ;D

tbs: The following is probably a waste of time, but I shall respond in detail to Symphony's post before leaving you to ponder whether you are all as correct as you think you are.  


Are you sure of what you're trying to say?  Hmmm.   And, as far as being "correct", II Corinthains 3:4-:  "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.  Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life."  :)

Are you a minister, tbs?  So there you are, minister "...of a new covenant, not in a written code..."  So that's what you are--"minister of a new covenant...".

On my earlier lumping of gay with the others, it's only because that's how it's done there in Leviticus--child sacrifice, adultery, gay, bestiality.  My guess is they're all lumped simply b/c they're all strategic, or, that is, critical, to human existence.  They are critical admonitions, or prohibitions, because you can't insure the integrity of human life as we know it if that human life loses it's design or direction(every "invention" of man's has it's "design", and likewise God's...); I believe that Leviticus passage in the KJ concludes with the words, "...it is confusion".  Mine in RSV uses, "...it is perversion."

You can't have human life cohabiting arbitrarily, and that's all three of those prohibitions are about--with another's wife, with a beast, or male upon male(ditto female).  It's "confusing"(especially, to children--thus Jesus' admonition, that causing one of them to sin it would be better for you to be weighted down and cast into the sea...).

Most who endorse the gay life equally endorse all or most of those others--free sex any way you want it("socialism"--being "social" with everyone or anything that moves--hehe).

As far as Nazism--you betcha.  It advanced only b/c no one said anything.  Early on, if the Jews and the Germans had jointly rushed them, there would have been no problem.  "Eternal vigilance..." goes the familiar refrain.  But many in the German populace generally were anti-semitic.

Same here.  Christian-dom is as complacent on this, homosexuality, the Trojan Horse, the "...wing of abomination.." of Daniel 9:27, as the German people and the Jews were about Nazisim.  They simply did nothing, or were silent.  Many in the general populace can't understand why the Christians are such "homophobes"--thus, you have fewer and fewer Christians willing to take that risk.  Same with the Germans. Those few who did speak out or assist the Jews--ministers, a few Catholic priests, evangelicals, a few students, families, individuals--were violently made an horrific example--but only because they were so few, and an easy target.

Did they see it coming?  Apparently not--until Crystal Night, when the next morning it's reported that some said there was something different in the air, despite the Bundestag's public reassurance that there was no connection to the coincidental, multiple attacks all over Germany the night before.

Parallel that gradual but sustained trend for some six years up to Krystallnacht, Nov of 1938, to the current federal Hate Crimes legislation, among the other events this year already mentioned, that is being seriiously bandied about now, extending protection to homosexuals--meaning, you can't publicly renounce it.  Notice I said "publicly", which implies that you'll then be watched privately(that's the point--the Nazis had neighborhood volunteers who regularly reported on their own neighbors, throughout Germany--the jovial gardner down the street was in boots and brownshirt come the weekend).

Oklahoma Howdy to Symphony,

I think your post is on the mark, with one exception. "Phobia" is usually connected with an unreasonable fear. Thus, "Homophobes" is not an accurate description. I am not afraid of them at all, but I do condemn their acts, am disgusted with their lifestyle, and I refuse to accept or respect their lifestyle. I think that most Christians would fit into the same category, so maybe we need a word other than "Homophobe". How about "HOMODISGUSTUS".

In Christ,
Tom

bep:  "HOMODISGUSTUS".   ;D


grebe:"...love isn't about worrying about the consequences,"


symph:  OUCH!!  *sigh*  Love IS worrying about the consequences.  That's precisely why the guy doesn't have sex with the girl before the protection or insurance of marriage--because it likely will produce a child(i.e., "consequences"...  :-[).

Love isn't worrying about the consequences!   Oh, if only that were true, grebe, if only that were true.  Hehe.

We could all have one big happy party, that's for sure!!  Tally ho!  

     :-X

Grebe,

I assume you are talking about a relationship involving sex. I'll make it real simple. The only sexual relationship that is permitted and blessed by God is between a man and a woman WITHIN the bonds of marriage. Sexual relationships between a man and a woman OUTSIDE the bonds of marriage is fornication and a sin. Sexual relationships between a person and the spouse of another is adultery and a sin. Sexual relationships between people of the same sex or between a person and an animal are an ABOMINATION in the eyes of God and were death sentence offenses under the law. This sums up the teaching of the Bible on this subject. The teaching in the New Testament remained the same, with the exception that we are no longer commanded to stone to death those who commit an abomination.

If you are looking for acceptance of any relationship involving sex, other than between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage, you won't find it in the Holy Bible. Further, you won't find acceptance or respect of these acts by God's children.

Yep, grebe, bep has it about right.  I know you're dealing with the question of can something that feels so right be so wrong.
The 16 chpts of Romans tackles this--"Had it not been for the law, I wouldn't have known sin..." , or, that is, I wouldn't have known that something is sin, if the law hadn't told me it was.

But for Christians, that "law" is God's law.  And that's what we look to, 'though as bep points out, not with the same retribution as in the OT.  The NT, incl. Romans, is more, change your ways, come out of the sinful nature, believe on the name of Jesus Christ, confess His name with thy lips(Romans 10:9,10)--in short, "repent", and believe on His Name, and turn from the wicked paths.

More back to this thread's topic, that is, the violence that the gays will bring, as compared with the Nazis 70 years ago, just noticed the following was posted today, over at WND:

Church worker beaten for 'anti-gay' sermon?
Men assaulted janitor after pastor preached homosexuality sinful

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 20, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34178

This article mentions three separate cases:  

In Ohio, three men assault a church's janitor in apparent response to minister's rejection of homosexuality;

2) In London, an Anglican minister assaulted by two colleagues, on street, for his apparent rejection of homosexuality(in the Episcopal church)...

3)  In Texas, Aug. 5, Episcopal church vandlized and partially burned, for remaining "orthodox"...

"You see its very confusing..."

grebe, that's exactly how the King James version terms it, in Leviticus 18:19-23.  It concludes with the words:  "...it is confusion."

Part of it today is a society largely gone wild with its own appearances.  No big surprise then that you have individuals increasingly enthralled with appearances of anybody, regardless of who or what they are.

This is the implication in Ezekiel 16:49:  "...this was the guilt of your sister Sodom:  she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Largely, the confusion you are speaking of comes from prosperity.  Hardship tends to put things in perspective.

[colo=red]Psa 10:3  For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

Jer 17:9  The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? [/color]

Love is not about acting out of the feelings of your heart.  You sound like you are obviously confusing lust and love something common for many a person.  Many feelings come from the heart and are not loving.  Hate comes from the heart as well and acting upon it would be anything but loving.

There is plenty in the bible about homosexuality you just don't want to see it.

How old are you?  You need to speak with some people if this is such an issue for you.  There are groups and things of people who were gay efore they were saved.  I don't know your lifes story or anything but I'm sure there is probably something in there that somehow has tipped you the wrong way.  From just the surface of what you are saying it sounds like you have some "attention" issues.  I have a feeling you find yourself in "love" a little too often and "true love" you have not found yet.  Why do you know so much about loving people (and I am harping on the pural thing).  

Deviant sex isn't any better regardless of a persons sexual "orientation".  Heterosexuals are ingaged in just as much as homosexuals really but we complain about them too, at least I do.  The one major difference and I brought this up before is that homosexuals think they deserve special treatment as if they were a species of people or something.  You won't get any special treatment because the LORD has condemned the act.  I'm also guessing you are female as well correct?

Saved4:  "...I brought this up before is that homosexuals think they deserve special treatment as if they were a species of people or something.

Hehe, they ARE a species of people, Saved:

http://www.theinvaders.co.uk/  (http://www.theinvaders.co.uk/SmallInvaders.gif)

And they look the same as you or I.

    :-[

Are you like the devils right hand woman or something?  Really you are vile person with the lies you spew.  You'd rather send someone to hell than have them see a glorious victory in Jesus.  That makes you quite vile.

Rom 1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23  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.
Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  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.
Rom 1:26  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:
Rom 1:27  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.
Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32  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.

May your mouth be shut and God true as always.  The LORD Rebuke thee!

The original intent of this thread, that we are transitioning into an American Dictatorship(at least here in U.S.), and that this parallels what happened to Germany with the Nazis in the 1930s, has reached a next stage--that is, actual violence.

I am offering a continuance of that projection under a separate thread here, Part II.  It represents that stage where violence actually begins, against those who openly reject homosexuallity.

'Tho I won't frame it here yet, I'm project further also, later on, a Part III.  This will represent "beyond" just the initial violence--as with the brownshirts in 1930s Germany.  Part III will represent where persecution of the Jews or, in America's case, persecution of the Christians, will be actually legislated--that is, a matter of public law.

It isn't there yet.  But already a brief has been filed for repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military; also, there is Federal hate crimes legislation, not yet confirmed, extending protection to gays and lesbians.

When those things are confirmed, I see us then as moving in to Part III or, that is, in Germany, the "Final Solution", which was decided on in 1942(for death camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc., four years after Crystal Night).

But for right now, just Part II or, that is, just the variable violence, and "ghetto-ization" of Christians who dare to say a word.

Maybe just to get back on topic, Sean Hannity's talk radio program mentioned Judge Moore's stand on the Ten Commandments as a "pivotal" moment.

I heard last night one other radio commentator's reflection that the American public may just be getting tired of "all this
Christian stuff..."

I was thinking the Judge Moore thing could be pivotal in a way we hadn't thought--that is, if he is imprisoned, that could be seen as an approving precedent--for the gay movement(the topic of this thread here--that is, the beginning of the persecution of the Christians by the gay movement), and for the public generally as well, to begin to actually "silence" Christian "dissent".

I'm not looking for JUdge Moore to be imprisoned, but so far, his eight associates have overruled him, and the state's attorney general either.

If effect, the Judge Moore thing could backfire into actually a significant, major precedent for "silencing" Christian dissent in America--generally, not by just the gay agenda.

I think I'll post this under the Judge Moore's threads too.  This "new twist" is actually what I was pointing to under my "Part II, Krystallnacht 1938" thread, where the ghetto-ization of Christians becomes violent(current examples given or to be added there).  But more accurately, this would fall under "Part III, Krystallnacht...", which I haven't begun yet, where the violence is actually legislated, or legal.  Or, that is, where there would at least be legal imprisonment.

I know where I live my own "evangelization" could soon be seen as a "nuisance"--tolerated for a while but ultimately, finally silenced, perhaps even just by people generally--people who go to church, work, vacation, etc,--people who want things to continue "as they are" and have enough to contend with.

Howdy Symphony,

I don't like current events either, but I think that it may lead to something positive. There is a growing rumble of a Constitutional Convention. There is also open contempt by many representatives of various court decisions. This one, even if it goes bad, may be the one that slows down or stops what I call the "evil train".

We also have quite a few Christians waking from their slumber and realizing they should have been doing something and saying something. I'm optimistic that even a bad decision on this one may bring something positive.

In Christ,
Tom
 

Thank you, bep.  

Yes, I'm subject to distorted vision, that's for sure.  I'm all for an optimistic view of things.  I'm all for folks "waking up".

On August 21, on this thread, the following:

Reply #57 on: August 21, 2003, 01:32:18 PM »      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original intent of this thread, that we are transitioning into an American Dictatorship(at least here in U.S.), and that this parallels what happened to Germany with the Nazis in the 1930s, has reached a next stage--that is, actual violence.

I am offering a continuance of that projection under a separate thread here, Part II.  It represents that stage where violence actually begins, against those who openly reject homosexuallity.

'Tho I won't frame it here yet, I'm project further also, later on, a Part III.  This will represent "beyond" just the initial violence--as with the brownshirts in 1930s Germany.  Part III will represent where persecution of the Jews or, in America's case, persecution of the Christians, will be actually legislated--that is, a matter of public law.

It isn't there yet.  But already a brief has been filed for repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military; also, there is Federal hate crimes legislation, not yet confirmed, extending protection to gays and lesbians.

When those things are confirmed, I see us then as moving in to Part III or, that is, in Germany, the "Final Solution", which was decided on in 1942(for death camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc., four years after Crystal Night).

But for right now, just Part II or, that is, just the variable violence, and "ghetto-ization" of Christians who dare to say a word.  


Part II, or, actual violence against Christians, is elsewhere here under Current Events.

Part III, that is, actual legislation aimed at Christians, hasn't occurred yet, so I haven't proposed to begin that as a thread yet.  However, a new book, by David Limbaugh, Rush's brother, Persecution:  How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity was just released.

I'm guessing that when we do reach Part III, that one comparison might be, to what was called The Court of the Star Chamber, in England, roughly 1400s to 1600s.  The court could not issue a death sentence, but everything else just short of that, including torture, and, it did so under secrecy.  The court got its name from a pattern of stars design on the ceiling of the judicial court building.

That is, the actual legislation may not be outright, or an actual law, but something you do clandestinely--simply silence any opposing voice whatsoever--which could be routinely performed by all three main insitutions:  Government, commerce and, the church--indeed, just refuse employment to an outspoken Christian in any one of those three arenas, and you have significantly reduced much of any Christian voice at all.

But since this would not be actual legislation, its a little offtopic for Part III, and is really not on topic with Parts I or II, either.  So I'll begin a separate "Star Chamber" thread...

From the original post here, last August:

Just occurred to me, the gay rights thing is the "Krystallnacht, 1938" for the American Christian.  The Supreme Court decision in June this summer, not to mention other gay-related victories this year,  overturning sodomy laws in the remaining 12+ states has literally overnight changed the climate here.

Virtually overnight, an invisible "dictatorship" where you only say anything at your peril.  An unspoken caveat to keep our mouths shut.

The gays will be willing to stage violence in order to make it look like the "anti-gays"(more specifically, Christians) did the violence(arson, etc.).  Most law-abiding "citizens" in the interest of their own situations, will increasingly go along with them, just in order to abide by the law.  This is how they framed the Jews in late 30s Germany.

Added to this will be the further complication that some of the accusations will be undoubtedly true--there will no doubt be some reactionary types--"rednecks", "homophobes", fanatics, etc.--who will in fact resort to outright violence "against gays".

But underneath it all, there will no doubt be a collective, perhaps even well-thought-out and sophisticated effort to isolate, "ghetto-ize"(as with the Warsaw Jews), and erase or otherwise sanitize any Christian voice whatsoever--at least any Christian voice that dares to renounce homosexuality.

The Christians had their chance--freedom of the press, freedom of speech, these resent years.  Even the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.,  refuse to come out and actually renounce gay behavior.

A few Christian ministers have.

__________________________________________


The key words, to me, in the above post are Virtually overnight.

That is to me now, what has happened this week.   In Nazi Germany, it happened overnight--November of 1938(I forget the exact day).

The only difference is, this has been done non-violently.

In San Francisco, you have a city disregarding state law.  Isn't that then a law enforcement issue?  A state highway patrol issue?  All it would take is a few officers(with backup waiting if necessary) to simply shut down the city's illegal activity.  

Apparently, there's just too much complicity all the way up the chain, from local city gov't, now, to county, to state--most key individuals in that chain, now, I imagine, would be at least gay sympathizers.

As of today, now more than 3000 "marriage licenses" issued to gay/lesbian.  Very strangely, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out today, they want the legal protection and benefits of a marriage "license", yet they disregard the marriage law of that state(Prop. 22, passed in 1996?).

This disregard for the law, while seeking out at the same protection of "the law", is the clearest indicator of their clear intent.

And just today, a county in New Mexico, just north of Albuquerque.

And like with the Nazis on Krystallnacht, you will fall into line.  

And these folks aren't wearing uniforms.
 

Oklahoma Howdy to Symphony,

The officers were more than likely prevented from taking any enforcement action. That's politics deluxe in action. Since a Mayor is the main player, it would probably take the Governor to act, and I guarantee a brand new Governor will get a legal opinion first. I'm hoping the final result will be that all of the marriages are null, and those involved will either be charged or recalled from office.

There is also a bill going through the house right now that will ban same sex marriage and civil unions. If it passes, there will be a round of court hearings. It would be nice to see this evil ended. However, we said the same thing about Roe vs. Wade.

We can all pray, sign every petition that becomes available, write our representatives, join email flooding campaigns of the House and the Senate, and vote the turkeys out of office if they don't do what is right. However, the problem with most political turkeys is they are all wimpy and afraid to take a stand.

I guess we could let you finish the design of your shirts and get 50 million plus per day wearing them to see what that would do. In terms of homophobia, I don't think that anyone fears them at all. Some of the politicians might be worried about losing some campaign funds and votes, but nobody is afraid of them.

Love In Christ,
Tom  

What shirts? The one I mentioned I was wearing (HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN) or is there another also? I'd love to get mine printed but I don't think there is much of a market for the wording....I have another one in mind that would "go over" better.....I'll keep you posted, if I get that far! In the meantime, nothing wrong with a good old white t shirt and some permanent markers...

What really bothers me about this (aside from the obvious) is that by the courts waiting to deal with this (SF is now waiting until Mar 29) there will be so many more "marriages" performed that they're likely to go, well, so many have been done so far, we can't just make them all illegal now.....I think it's a deliberate stall technique.

Hmm, thank you, bep.  Yep, I figure it is all key individuals all the way up through the state capital putting the brakes on--taking their time.


Mar. 29 courtdate, onestar, postponed to?  Yikes.  Well, that's convenient.    Why am I not surprised.   :-\


I'd love to get mine printed but I don't think there is much of a market for the wording


That's what I'm afraid of if I tried to make it a business.  I went to the T-shirt ad on this website--or one of them.  The shirts there just strike me as sentimental, saccharine, or something.  

Still, your shirt ideas might work as a business.   Attitudes change; sometimes something you think  no way will it work, all of a sudden it just seems to be just the ticket.  Who knows, from your description of responses, you may win gays over to wearing the shirts also--evangelizing from the "inside"--faster than very many Christians might ever deign to don them--I'd rather "silently" condemn them.  ;)

That's what occurred to me with yours, onestar.  It's so simple--yet it seems to be just the ticket--with the right attitude.

Sometimes, people are like children--they WANT to be told that they are wrong.  

Well, the jury is still out - I don't go out a lot in that shirt, just some of the time. I don't want to be condemning towards people, altho I don't think i feel that way inside. I am angry at lies and sin, and I think we are to speak up for the truth - firmly, definitely, no hemming and hawing. It's as a warning to people. But I don't think many will hear. Still, it has gotten the attention of people, and some homosexuals - maybe it would shock some of them into investigating further? I am very pleasant to people, but you can be pleasant and still be truthful. Stating something is a sin is not a bad thing - they are looking for an excuse to hang onto their homosexuality. Where are the people who are willing to stand up and say "this is wrong!" whatever it is we're talking about. I've also thought of having ready a list of websites or places that are resources to homosexuals to come out of the lifestyle.

Where are the people who are willing to stand up and say "this is wrong!" whatever it is we're talking about. I've also thought of having ready a list of websites or places that are resources to homosexuals to come out of the lifestyle

Hmm.  Yes.


I'm thinking about making my whole wardrobe(hehe--such as it is... :-[), with something on it.

I'm thinking even a whole "fashion line", of maybe casual dress items, expressing in various forms, a general theme--"Unto us a Child is born..."  and "Homosexuality is a sin"...  etc.  

It's be a quite a "fashion statement"...hehe.

I'm not meaning to make fun of any of it.  But just an overall attitude of how to go about it...

We're clearly in the wrong about this--that is, America.  But where else, equally, do you have the freedom to point out that wrongness?  So maybe with a whole "fashion line" of clothing.

Much of the "Christian" stuff I see is saccharine or impotent, or just commercial, it seems.

Yep. I was thinking T shirts ( I too, will probably need little else if I paint everything). Also bumper stickers, but removeable ones. Like magnetic signs with a sticket pasted on it so you can change them out or remove them. You could print one for yourself on a computer. And I even thought of those triangular signs on the top of the car that pizza places have, and cabs - where there is a message on 3 sided.

I saw today, the coolest thing, in a parking lot. A nice pickup with this lettered on the back "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" with scripture reference. Then, down each side of the truck was lettered Smile, Jesus loves you!

...from the beginning Post of this thread, last August:

....But underneath it all, there will no doubt be a collective, perhaps even well-thought-out and sophisticated effort to isolate, "ghetto-ize"(as with the Warsaw Jews), and erase or otherwise sanitize any Christian voice whatsoever--at least any Christian voice that dares to renounce homosexuality.




Here now nine months later, in the May 3 issue of U.S. News, an article asking if "...evangelicals are acting more and more like the rest of us."(p. 59),  it quotes the religion editor of Publisher's Weekly, Lynn Garrett, saying, "They've broken out of the Christian ghetto and into the mainstream."(referring to popular books such as Left Behind and Purpose Driven Life, and pop musicians such as Amy Grant, Switchfoot, MercyMe, and others)

So even the popular media is admittedly or freely referring to the Christian community in America now as the Christian "ghetto"...


Since when did the "Christian community" in America become a "ghetto"??

But there it is, being used that way in the popular media, now.

Very subtle.  And wonder if anyone even noticed.

I noticed in an earlier issue of U.S. News, several months ago, the editorial commented on the movie, High Noon, emphasizing how it ended, to champion the cause of standing up to tyranny.  If you go and watch the movie, it didn't end that way at all--quite differently actually--in fact, quite the opposite.  I wrote them a letter, but they didn't respond.  Apparently no one in their readership noticed the slip either.

The editorial used High Noon to champion the cause of standing up to tyranny.  But if you go and watch the closing scene of that movie, that isn't what happened at all.