Saturday, March 01, 2014
With the increasing legal and popular acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, there has been an accompanying increase in confusion.
With all the cries for acceptance of their sexual preferences have come accusations of discrimination and intolerance toward those who supposedly will not readily accept their immoral stance.
So, in order to eliminate as much confusion as possible, let's clarify a few things.
First, it should be understood that the long standing meaning of the clear statements of the Bible against homosexual activity that have been held by Professing Christians of many denominations will be continued to be held by those same conservative Believers.
Second, what has been labeled as discrimination against homosexuals tends to be nothing more than a First Amendment exercise of sincere religious belief on the part of professing religious Believers.
If a homosexual couple enters my restaurant to eat, am I to deny them a meal? They would say "No!"
If, however, they ask me to cater an event that showcases their lifestyle, that is a different matter. My religious belief would not allow me to promote, benefit or further actions or conditions that I would consider morally wrong.
On the other hand, if I entered a restaurant owned by a homosexual, would I expect him do deny me a meal simply because I was a professing Christian? No. By serving a meal to me, this person would in no way be promoting, benefitting or furthering my religious life and/or beliefs.
Nor, on the other hand, would I expect this person to cater my event where my lifestyle, religious beliefs, which may be diametrically opposed to his or hers, will be the center of attention. Can I or should I be able to force this person to promote, benefit or further my religious beliefs, simply because I ask him to? Should I expect this person to violate his own beliefs? Should I be able to sue for discrimination? The obvious answer is no.
This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted and emotional issue. Addressing one aspect at a time can help alleviate confusing arguments as well as promote rational thought.
Does this mean that everyone involved gets their way in every instance and circumstance? No, but ranting solves nothing and promotes misunderstanding as well as maintaining highly emotional exchanges.
That's why tolerance is an issue that really has two sides in the legal realm. It has a practical side that needs to be evident in the exercise of rights, as well as duties, according to the law.
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Sometimes, we find our heart wounded, maybe broken, because of the choices in life that are made. And sometimes, these choices are not made by us, but by others. Nevertheless, the impact is deeply felt.
So, in the matter of penetrating wounds of the heart, let's remember that Jesus is the perfect One to take out shattered heart to. He alone knows how to repair that which has been destroyed.
How does He do this?
He simply gives you Himself.
And then there was the intellectual who absolutely believed that there are no absolutes in life!
Can you run that by me one more time, please!
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Within the world of Christian music has been a debate raging for decades. What type or style of music is right? What type or style of music is wrong?
Increasingly, the consensus position has been reduced to the following. The music doesn't matter. The lyrics are what is important.
Really? So, any style of music can be used as long as the words, the lyrics are correct?
I would like to issue the following challenge.
For the moment set aside the issue of music.
Now contemplate all other issues of life and do this:
Name one area of life where it doesn't matter how you conduct yourself or how you do things. In other words, you can do it anyway you want to.
If you can name just one area of life in which it doesn't matter how you conduct yourself, then the area of music doesn't matter either.
In the United States, involuntary servitude has been prohibited via the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Voluntary servitude, however, has not. It remains completely legal. This legal condition is also pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, since it has not been specifically prohibited.
I am not aware of any example whereby someone has legally sold themselves into a state of total and complete slavery. It is difficult to imagine anyone selling themselves into such a condition.
Is it possible, then, to have a partial state of slavery?
To provide an answer, let's consult the Bible as our authority.
Solomon said in Proverbs 22:7 that the borrower is the slave of the lender.
How many in the United States can attest to being in personal debt? So, according to the Bible, one is a slave to the extent that they owe someone else.
Virtually all citizens of United States are in debt to one degree or another. This makes us the largest slave nation in the world.