The Certainty of God’s Truth
Apr 27th, 2007 by Amanda
Once we, as humans, begin to tamper with what God says is true and good, we launch ourselves down a slippery slope that will necessarily lead to greater and grander error. Only when we have rejected God’s truth do we need to fight about and wrestle with issues such as whether a baby killed inside its mother is morally and ethically equal to the murder of a baby outside of its mother’s body. Only when we turn from God’s truth do we need to wonder if a man who used to be a woman is really now a woman or a man. When God’s Word is held out as the standard, these questions immediately dissolve in the light of its certainty.
Read the whole article for some pretty extreme examples.
Thanks to bad translations and a host of other issues, we’re not positive exactly what “god’s word” was in the first place. Check out this site:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
I’m sorry, musicguy, but I just can’t agree with that article. The Bible’s pretty clear on homosexuality, and that doesn’t jive with this particular interpretation.
Ah, the cry of the cult leader: Isn’t life easier if you just accept my morality?
When any morality is held up as the unquestionable ideal, these problems vanish. All this proves is that enough dubious assumptions and circular logic can make anything seem reasonable.
I’m sorry to be abrupt, but I don’t have a lot of respect for the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” school of thought.
John 8:(10)When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (11)She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Even if you truly believed that Jesus healed the male lover of the centurion (and that is quite a leap itself; why could the centurion simply not have a trusted servant who had been with him for years?), you can hardly make the longer leap by saying that Jesus “affirmed” a gay couple, any more than he let the adulterous woman go on her way without reminding her to sin no more.
Thanks for the link, Amanda. I enjoyed Blake’s article. Interestingly, NOW opposes legislation on fetal homicide because it fears that will lead to abortion restrictions. Hopefully, it will. As a society, we have come so far (though not far enough) in establishing rights for women and children, but then we determine that children in the womb are simply chattel. If you give it a name, paint the nursery, and state your intentions to have the child, it’s a “baby”. Two days later you could abort it as reproductive system offal. It really should not be a religious issue, and there are atheists and agnostics who are pro-life, but if it takes religious folk to keep the issue visible and not let it fade away, then so be it.