Homosexuality Much Greater Health Hazzard Than Smoking
April 3, 2007 by Doug Parris
|
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married showed that engaging in homosexual behavior reduced the lifespan by 24 years!
|
|
So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.“What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?” asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank.“Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.
According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.
In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yr., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.
In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yr. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yr. compared to 56 yr. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.
“The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant,” said Dr. Cameron. “The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities.“
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented “Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint.” Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
The full report can be accessed at www.earnedmedia.org/frireport.htm
|
|
| Updated April 03, 2007 Written by Conservative News Wire |
Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Leave a Reply
“Thou doth protest too much, methinks.”
With all of the republican perverts coming out of the woodwork these days, it really makes you wonder. Why are conservative christians so damn obsessed with gays? 8 out of the 10 commandments are punishable by death, all 8 of those are broken fairly routinely in this country, but this one violation gets all of the attention. Why?
I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been to some popular breakfast spot within the vicinity of a pentacostal church, only to have to wait in line among a sea of people coming out from service, waiting to be served by an entire cast of restaurant staff, serially defying god as told in Exodus 31:15. Not a hint of protest, let alone dragging them out to be stoned.
I guarantee you the number of people who work the sabbath, week after week outnumber the entire gay population of the U.S. by 10-1, but I’ve yet to ever hear a single protest from the Christian community about that. Heck, I bet a lot of Christians are working themselves. We know what Jesus said about the old law in Luke 16:17, so why is that? Are you selectively deciding which of God’s laws are to be obeyed and which aren’t?
It’s funny. You accuse “Christian Conservatives” of being obsessed, mention “republican perverts” obliquely, as if it were somehow related, and then launch into a seriously misguided diatribe about the apparent internal conflicts in a religion of which you demonstrate considerable ignorance.
None of which has anything to do with the point of the article.
Since you don’t give the Bible enough credence to make any attempt to even understand (what is, easily, the most read and analyzed book in human history), and, since you, obviously, make no pretense at seriously attempting to persuade those who do, one wonders at your motivation if it is not some “obsession.”
You are offended, I trust, by morality. You have violated your conscience, dislike the guilt, and, erroneously, think it can be palliated by expunging the ideology that explains it.
Not to worry.
The New Testament is relatively short, as allegedly supernatural, world-history-changing works of literature go. The whole thing, all twenty seven books, is about as long as a couple of months of Reagan Wing articles and has, shall we say, more significance. If you have had the tenacity to read a Russian novel, getting through it is child’s play. It not only provides a clear response to the problem you pose, here, it will give you another, non-Freudian, alternative to deal with that guilt. (And by non-Freudian, I mean something that actually has some hope of working.)
The challenges, as I see them, are 1, to skip through the genealogies in Matthew, at the beginning (you can always go back and read them later (or not (it’s not like it’s a religious duty, or anything)), and, 2, to avoid attempting to interpret the book of Revelation (or any other last days prophesy) to avoid getting hopelessly sidetracked.
You can write us with any questions – we know people who know things – or, if you prefer, with more hate-filled diatribes. It is all welcome in comments, and, as you know, need not be related to the article.
Remember, we, here, at the Reagan Wing, love you no matter how screwed up you are.
I was actually looking at the bigger picture. This wasn’t the first article I read here on the subject, I just grew tired of reading the same articles rehashed over and over and thought I would comment here.
Scrolling through this site, In the last year, you’ve made 37 articles directly, or indirectly attacking gay issues in some form or another. If distributed equally during that time, that’s almost 3 a month! Between working, paying bills, and my family, I can’t remember when I had enough time to get angry about how strangers conduct their lives, 3 times a month.
No, I’m not “offended by morality”, but I am amused by your opinion of what that is. I would surmise that like most fundamentalist Christians, you would see morality as an adherence to god’s law, the teachings of Christ, and “immorality” as an abandoment of those principles.
Equally amusing to me is that in 6 paragraphs of gibberish, not once did you even attempt answer my question in anything other than really lame deflections, and blind assumptions as to what you think I know or believe. I posed 2 direct questions. You write your articles like a man of strong conviction (wrong as you may be), so don’t deflect, don’t duck them (that’s what liberals do, right?) be a man of conviction and answer them directly. I’ll ask again:
Direct question 1: God commands the sabbath to be observed, Jesus Christs himself stated numerous times that the old laws still hold true. Therefore, any bible-believer would have to conclude that it is immoral to work on the sabbath, as this day is reserved for God. However, I can assure you that the number of people who consciously make no attempt to observe the sabbath in this country greatly outnumbers the people engaging in homosexual activity of any kind. That said, why are there 37 articles pertaining to gay issues of some form or another, and not one pertaining to people not observing the sabbath?
(if you need some help with this, you could start with “I do not post articles related to the overwhelming masses of people failing to observe the sabbath because…”)
Direct question 2: Given the above, Are you selectively deciding which of God’s laws are to be obeyed and which aren’t? Because from any Christian perspective, that doesn’t sound very “moral” to me. It sounds like you are second-guessing god. In fact more than just second guessing, you are telling him “no”.
Direct Responses to “Talbot” as requested:
You say, “God commands the sabbath to be observed.”
Wrong. According to the Bible, God commanded the Jews to observe the sabbath and coupled that observance, and numerous other requirements and observances, with specific spiritual and temporal benefits and promises (including a major land grant) to their physical lineage. He never commanded “the world” or “Gentiles” to obey the sabbath. He made it clear, subsequently, that that whole affair was allegorical for the rest of the world.
“Jesus Christs himself stated numerous times that the old laws still hold true.”
Wrong. In the Bible, Jesus stated that the law was in effect at that time and would not change until it was “fulfilled.” He specifically stated that a primary purpose of his incarnation was to fulfill it, thus preparing a change, and did so, by living a sinless life and dying in atonement for the sin of mankind. This is clear Biblical teaching and a fundamental part of Christianity with which you, obviously, are unfamiliar.
Further, the “sabbath” was, clearly, Saturday, not the restaurant day about which you, ignorantly, assail your pentacostal neighbors. Under Moses, until the death of Christ (fulfilling the Law), Saturday was set aside for observance by an ethnically chosen people who had a unique gift and burden. Upon fulfillment by the Ultimate Jew, Jesus, there was a major change in the law and this is attested to throughout the New Testament. [Note, however, that this did not alter the unconditional Promises to Jews, which predated the Law] One obvious indication of this change is the impossibility of obeying the Mosaic Law with respect to observances without the Temple or Tabernacle, both of them having been lost, along with the land.
“…any bible-believer would have to conclude…”
No, the concepts you endorse, here, (though, obviously not for yourself) are the kind of thing a casual and uninstructed reader might fabricate, particularly if he were trying to attack someone else’s religion out of spite. Had you ever been serious about Biblical doctrine, you could have easily found the gaping loopholes in your theory.
“That said, why are there 37 articles pertaining to gay issues of some form or another, and not one pertaining to people not observing the sabbath?”
Have you checked the old archives, as well? 37 sounds a bit low. I think we’ve put up around eight or nine hundred articles altogether since 2004. There should be closer to 50 if we had taken a mathematically balanced approach.
You’ll find, Mr. Talbot, that there are no articles on transubstantiation nor predestination nor the immaculate conception, either, because we are not a site about religion. We are a site about conservative Republican politics. The assault on American culture by the gay rights politcal machine is a very current political issue. The destruction of free speech by left wing politicians at the direction of the gay rights movement is proceeding right now, as is the promotion of sexual perversion by government educators who have decided to use our tax dollars as a warchest for their own private political agenda.
By contrast, Communism, a much more all-encompassing evil, has gone on the back burner since the near fatal wound it received at the hands of Ronald Reagan. Far from advancing, the Soviet Union is not considered an imminent threat and China is not one yet. Had we existed in 1979, for instance, the Reagan Wing would have written a LOT about Communism, LITTLE about “gay rights”, but still NOTHING about ancient Jewish religious practices. We are, after all, not pure academics, but activists engaged in real battles in the real world.
“Are you selectively deciding which of God’s laws are to be obeyed and which aren’t?”
I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I already answered that, above. This is not a site about religion. That is not to say I wouldn’t talk about it if you had a subject you wanted to bring up, either to criticize those with whom you disagree, as above, or had a serious question about something you were considering agreeing with. I am neither hiding my personal beliefs, nor requiring anyone to agree with them. All of us at the core of the Reagan Wing are looking for people who agree with us, politically.
But there is nothing “religious” in nature, in the article, above, about which you pretend to be posting comments. It would, therefore, be a similar insinuation if you were to ask, “You talk about the health threats of homosexuality, but why have you written nothing, in all these months about influenza?” We are not a health publication. We are not a religious publication. But either, from time to time, might have some political significance and the struggle to use government to eradicate American culture is front and center in the current political scene.
What’s your position?
Well, like I said, I stopped counting at 37. I figured that number adequate to make my point.
“we are not a site about religion.”
You could have fooled me. You have “belief in god” posted directly as one of your “core principles” of The Reagan Wing. I’m not even going to bother counting the number of articles that suggest an approach to politics from a “godly” perspective, or even ones that mention Christ directly. As a conservative website that publishes articles from a Judeo-Christian perspective of American heritage, I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that religion is at the foundation of the opinions expressed here.
Yes, I’m all-too familiar with all of the “Jesus was the lamb” argument as noted in Romans 4:10 . This is a very convenient and popular interpretation of the bible, but it doesn’t wash. If it does, then either Paul was wrong in Romans, or Jesus blatantly lied in Matthew 5:17-18
“For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
It does not say “till heaven and earth pass OR all be fulfilled”. It says quite clearly “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. Again in Luke 16:17 “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” A slightly watered-down redress of the former, but it still makes a pretty clear point. Well, take a look around you, Earth still there?
My point was that you speak of “morality” as if the issue is a one or two dimensional argument, even if you support the bible’s silly and narrow construct of what “morality” is. Personally, I find U.S. manufacturers exploiting overseas child labor immoral. Nike calls it “business” and the bible doesn’t really have much to say on the subject at all. I find dogfighting immoral, the bible really doesn’t have much to say there either. I find slavery immoral and abhorrent, where the bible is ethically neutral (at best) on the matter.
How many heterosexual people cheat on their spouses or engage in sexual activity out of wedlock (christians included)? I’m reasonably confident the number is equal or greater than those engaging in homosexual activity, to very little concern of anybody, including christian conservatives. In fact, I would say the problem of immoral heterosexuality is far worse, as one can cheat on their spouse or engage in ungodly sex without condemnation or referendum by anybody. Gays are merely trying to get where immoral heterosexuals have been since the dawn of this country. These people are elected into office, teach our children, fly airplanes, serve in the armed forces, and raise children. Serial adulterers and ungodly fornicators have wormed their way into every aspect of society, to the chagrin of nobody.
Conservative republicans remain firmly locked firmly on gays. In fact, I think the only time I’ve seen conservatives take a stance on adultery with any of the gravity they give to gays is when the adulterer in question, just happened to be a liberal democrat president. Gays simply want the same rights as any other demographic if “immoral” people.
Now, I don’t pretend to know what’s in anybody else’s mind. I’m not a psychic, but I have a hunch. You find gays offensive, personally first, and the bible conveniently reinforces this prejudice. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if today, Jesus made himself visible to the entire world, regardless of faith, and repudiated everything stated in the bible relating to homosexuality to the whole world, the conservative movement wouldn’t change it’s stance on the issue one bit. Of course that’s a bet that will never be settled, but I’m firmly convinced nonetheless.
Perhaps the “gay political machine” exists because it needs to. The tenacity of a group fighting for it’s right to exist peacefully is directly proportional to the threat against it. If not for it, we might still be in 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s mindset when making “faggot” jokes was not only socially acceptable, but encouraged, and “queer-bashing” was considered little more than a frat prank.
What’s my position?
Gays: Frankly, I don’t care for most gay people. Not on any moral grounds, they just tend to annoy me. But I recognize their right to exist and enjoy all of the freedoms I do. I really couldn’t care less how they conduct their lives in so much as it does not intrude upon others or whether or not the state grants them a marriage license.
My position morality? I’ll go with Heinlein, “The only sins involve harming others unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense”.
Talbot,
Just to provide some perspective, I have tangled with Doug in a few issues on this site, but I must agree with his basic concepts regarding the Holy Bible and correct your misconceptions of what the bible is saying. Too often, those who are openly hostile to Christianity, parse and take out of perspective verses to attack believers. This was a common tactic of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time, when they would attempt to trap him using tortured scenarios to interpret the Mosaic law. Jesus is constantly reminding us that his Kingdom is not of this world. A classic example is when his interrogators quizzed him about the validity of taxation. If you recall, he said give to Rome, what is Rome’s , for God’s Kingdom is not of this world.
Now, to the 2 verses you site, if you dig a bit deeper, both show the Glory and promise of God;
• Romans 4:10- Paul is saying that those who are justified are not done so by works alone, but rather by faith and the grace of God.
• Matthew 5:17-18- This one is a little tricky, especially for non believers like yourself. At the time Jesus uttered these words, there were rumblings by those in charge, that the laws of Moses were invalid and could be changed. Jesus is saying that he is the fulfillment of the old testament, and the prophets and the laws are valid. The problem was at that time (and is true today) those who deny God rely on strict adherence to the words , as opposed to the spirit and rationale of the law. Your own example of the Sabbath refutes your argument attacking Christians. When God designed the Sabbath. He intended it to be a blessing to human beings. He designed it to be a refreshing rest and an opportunity both to recuperate physically after six days of work and to draw close to Him in love and to worship Him, as well as to deepen love for the brethren through fellowship and outgoing concern. Jesus knew the spirit of the Sabbath commandment. Therefore, He knew that the split second of divine effort involved in healing was a valid use of time on the Sabbath. (Because of Jesus’ insight into the divine purpose behind the Sabbath, He freed the crippled worshipper of his burden. He experienced a wonderful and exciting blessing because Jesus understood the spirit of the law. God’s law is always a blessing to those who recognize the spirit of the law.
Hope that helps.
Talbot, your post (at 5) is as long as a whole article and clearly expresses beliefs you hold emotionally, but most of what you’ve said is untrue.
1. “Acknowledgment of God” NOT “Belief in God” is posted as a core principle. It is a political principle. We do not think the nation should requre people to believe in God, even though we do. But we think that the nation, at its founding, did, and, still (though in diminishing ways) does and should continue to acknowledge God’s existence and His role as our benefactor and continue to seek his blessing and guidance. It will work until we break it.
Your confusing of the one for the other is a small mistake, but symptomatic. Small mistakes on items of major importance can be crucial and you are sloppy that way.
2. We do, in fact, publish articles from a Judeo-Christian perspective, but about politics, not religion. Whether or not murderers should be executed is a political issue that can be coverd from a religious perspective, but whether or not women should have their heads covered in Church is a religious issue without a political component. The Old Testament Law coverd BOTH kinds of issues, and, therefore, addressed things extraneous to our concerns, here. Much of what I discuss in this very thread would never come up here, except that you have used religion as an attack on conservative politics.
3. You say, “This is a very convenient and popular interpretation of the bible, but it doesn’t wash.”
No, you’re quite wrong, here. It is very accurate interpretation. Paul is not only articulate about it, but emotionally so, in Galations 3, to cite just one reference.
4. “If it does, then either Paul was wrong in Romans, or Jesus blatantly lied in Matthew 5:17-18”
No, to the contrary. Paul asserts the doctrine, himself, in Romans:
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (8:2).
And the passage you quote from Matt. 5 discusses the duration of the jurisdiction of the law and gives it two limits: “the longevity of heaven and earth” and “fulfillment.” It’s like the following sentence: “The Bank’s interest in your house, till it burns to the ground, will not pass away till you pay off the mortgage.” Since the bank is named as a co-insured, burning down the house would end the mortgage just as pulling the plug on the universe would end the Law. But there is a second way and that is by paying it off.
That is, clearly, what New Testament teaching says Christ did, and it is quite articulate about the subject.
For instance, it makes it clear that until a man appropriates the benefits of Christ’s acomplishment, he’s still in debt to the law. Because heaven and earth have not passed away AND the law has not been fulfilled, individually, for him. There is a transaction still necessary, in that case, for him to accept what Christ did. That offer, bundling everything together, is called “atonement.” One must make certain agreements to accept the offer, close the deal, make the contract.
But even if the Christian interpretation of the New Testament WAS incorrect, that fact would not sustain one charge you want to base on it, that is to say, hypocrisy. You can’t simultaneously accuse people of not believing something and hold them accountable for hypocrisy for not living up to it.
5. Exploiting children is immoral, as is slavery, and the Bible condemns both, explicitly and in detail. It’s one reason Christianity is the force that defeated slavery in America and is the leading foe of abortion.
You have erected your own, narrow straw man and have beguiled yourself to hate him as if he were real.
6. You say, “Serial adulterers and ungodly fornicators have wormed their way into every aspect of society, to the chagrin of nobody.”
Gosh, you may have spent some time counting our articles, but you obviously haven’t spent much actually reading them.
7. You say, “I think the only time I’ve seen conservatives take a stance on adultery… is when the adulterer… happened to be a liberal democrat president.”
Well, again, you’re clearly not paying attention. Conservatives are much harder on their own. Democrat and liberal perverts get continually re-elected, but Conservatives get turned out of office for much smaller offences. It is the same across the board on all aspects of morality. Nixon didn’t approach the level of Clintonian crime, but REPUBLICANS threw him out. Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds stood, side by side, to be reprimanded by Congress, Crane, the conservative, for dalliance with a female page, Studds, for the same with a male page. It ended Crane’s career and launched Studds’. Compare the fate of Foley with Barney Frank’s. What happenned to Newt? It isn’t even close.
8. You say, “Gays simply want the same rights as any other demographic of ‘immoral’ people.”
I just want the same rights for Gays as numerous other demographics of people engaged in intrinsicly dangerous and contagious immoral behaviors. Narcotic drug dealers are probably the closest functional comparison. Every time a “gay” or a dealer “scores” he engages another human being in an activity that shortens their life and contributes to their ongoing addiction to the death-inducing behavior. Petty Theives, though, are the easiest to make an “orientation” argument for. Without reference to objective morality there is no rational argument against “open” property orientation.
9. You say, “…I’m willing to bet that if today, Jesus made himself visible to the entire world, regardless of faith, and repudiated everything stated in the bible relating to homosexuality…”
LOL!! Why have Him stopping at homosexuality? Suppose Jesus appeared and refuted morality altogether? He could announce that he was actually Karl Marx! Would those stupid Christian Conservatives listen? Unlikely. They’d probably still put their important papers in a safe, stay with their wives and lock their car! What idiots! What if He was actually Ronald McDonald? Would we still be labeling trans fats?
10. “…we might still be in 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s mindset when making “faggot” jokes…”
How old are you? It seems to me that most of the people I hear inventing anecdotal fiction, like you did, here, to falsely typify an era in America, have no actual experience in it, but learned what they know of traditional American Culture from the propaganda machines of left-wing public education.
11. “…how they conduct their lives in so much as it does not intrude upon others…”
Every homosexual act defiles another human being, victimizing both partners in an ongoing manner destructive of their personality, health and spirit. That even meets Heinlein’s silly and narrow construct of what “morality” is.
Guys –
Actually the Old Testament is still in force. The 10 Commandments came out of the Old Testament so I don’t see how those aren’t in force any more. Keep the Sabbath Holy and all that.
Remember it’s the 10 commandments not the 10 suggestions.
Not going to mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.
I agree with you Talbot that many Christians are hypocrites. The acceptance of contraception but condemnation of homosexual acts is the most blatant one I can think of. Many Christians don’t even see the connection. The sexual act was designed by God for procreation and the bonding between man and woman. Contraception, masturbation, homosexual acts, beastiality, etc. all violate God’s plan for humanity. They are all self-serving instead of self-giving acts.
Here at TRW and my own blog we do condemn and discuss contraception from time to time though not as much as we should. The society’s acceptance of contraception is part of the reason our country is in the mess it’s in and the part of the reason we have the problem of homosexuality, abortion, adultery and fornication. They are all linked though many (most?) Christians don’t see that.
Unfortunately, contraception is not an issue that is in play politically though you will be hearing more about it in years to come I believe.
There’s nothing in the 10 Commandments about Mass.
Gosh, now we’re discussing religion.
Re: Doug (at 9):
What a flippant way to make a point, Mr. Parris. You should know better than that. What do you have to say for yourself?
Well, what I was trying to point out was that the Mosaic Law established moral principles, civil Law, AND a particular form of worship. The moral principles never change and, overall, they were the backbone of the civil Law that was then (but no longer) in place. The civil Law had already been displaced by Roman rule in Christ’s time, and the moral Law and the ordinances of worship had been corrupted. That corruption had been extensively chronicled, in detail, 600 years earlier, by Ezekiel, who saw, in a vision, the resultant departure of the shekinah presence of God from the Temple (from whence it went and hoverd above the Mount of Olives), as well as the eventual destruction of Jerusalem that followed Christ’s time.
There is no question that the faith that Jesus established, did not call for a re-establishment of the civil authority of Israel and the corresponding overthrow of the Romans. Further, the statutes of worship changed radically, and somewhere between the two you have the very explicit and supernatural lifting of sanctions against “unclean” meats.
In what way did the statutes of worship change? The Mass is not what Moses instituted and is not on the Sabbath, but, in fact, was fashioned around the unchanging moral principle of the third commandment along with a great deal more that was completely unknown by Moses. The priesthood was completely revamped. The feasts lost authority, the Temple worship disappeared with the Temple and the whole of the culture (the only earthly nation ever blueprinted by God) was demolished and the people chosen as the protagonists of this vast historical allegory were dispersed for almost two thousand years, awaiting a promised return.
The Sabbath on Saturday, the priesthood, the feasts, the Temple Worship and its animal sacrifices -even the division of the land of Israel into its component family parcels – were all a part of the Law. It has passed away.
What has been erected in its place, according to the Biblical Scriptures, is vastly different in many ways and planned, from the foundation of the universe, to include all men from all the earth who will come into it, not just the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Yes, the Law was fulfilled. It was not just the Ten Commandments, after all, the Law was everything God dictated, directly, to Moses over weeks and weeks in the mountain and included commands that are, literally, impossible to obey. Why? Because they require a single, designated, place of worship specified to Moses by God during their sessions on Sinai: the tabernacle of the wilderness, which was eventually replaced (not by the decision of man, but by Divine ordinance) by the Temple in Jerusalem, the site now occupied by a Muslim shrine. Many of the ordinances of worship that were commanded, by the Law, to be practiced, were, explicitly, forbidden to be practiced any where else and that place no longer exists. It has passed away.
Is it okay to kill people and commit adultery? No.
But you knew that.
“Do this in memory of me” sounds like a commandment to me.
Rather than passing away, the mass is forshadowed in the Old Testament as is the Eucharist, the priesthood, the Queen of Heaven, etc. and is what it means to be fulfilled.
P.S. not killing and not committing adultery are the “do unto others” part of the NT fulfillment of the OT. How do we fulfill the first 3 commandments that relate to what we owe God?
“… one jot or one tittle [tiny Hebraic alphabetic indicators]shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. 5:18).
I agree with the substance of what you’re saying, Mary. But I think the quotation provided here, by Talbot, argues forcefully that the fact that any part of the Law has passed away is an indication that it ALL has been “fulfilled,” theologically.
That the fulfillment actually raises the standard, rather than lowering it, is often overlooked.
The Law provided a standard by which to measure behavior. The testimony of the Apostles was that its fulfillment provided a means to transform behavior.
“But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (I Cor. 13:10)
In other words, when the building is complete, the scaffolding is torn down, its actual purpose not having been changed one iota.
The bible should not be needed to prove homosexuality is wrong if one has been raised properly. Commonsense should tell us what the plumbing is all about. Homos are a perversion of the intended process. The old testament has been fulfilled but the new testament is still in effect and actuall goes beyond the old by saying it is not just what we do but what we think is wrong as well. Romans ch 1 lays it out for those that have to have a bible answer for homosexuals.
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/log-cabin-applauds-passage-of.html
News Release
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2006
Log Cabin Applauds Passage of Civil Rights Bill in Washington State
News Release
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2006
Contact: Dave Kaplan
Log Cabin Republicans of Washington
(206) 419-8677 (cell)
Contact: James Dozier
Log Cabin Republicans-Washington, DC Office
(202) 347-5306
or (202) 297-5026
Log Cabin Applauds Passage of Civil Rights Bill in Washington State
Vote from GOP State Lawmaker Allows Measure to Pass
(Olympia, WA) – Log Cabin Republicans applaud senators in Washington State for passing a non-discrimination bill to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. “Washington State lawmakers have sent an important message with this vote: discrimination for any reason will not be tolerated in the Evergreen State,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero.
State law now bans discrimination based on race, sex, religion, marital status, and other categories. The civil rights bill passed by the senate on Friday adds sexual orientation to that list. “A lot of people have been working a very long time to make this day possible,” said Log Cabin Republicans – Washington President Ken Nielsen. “We thank everyone who worked to achieve this important goal. It’s a great day for the people of Washington. “
The law would not have passed the state senate without support from GOP Senator Bill Finkbeiner who decided to support the bill after studying the issue and hearing stories from his gay and lesbian constituents. “We’re proud Senator Finkbeiner had the courage to do what’s right,” said Nielsen. “History will remember his courageous stand for basic fairness.”
The non-discrimination proposal passed the Washington State House last year with strong bi-partisan support, but failed in the senate by one vote. This session, Senator Finkbeiner said, “I’ve had a number of conversations over the past year that have led me to more fully understand the level of discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I now find it is both appropriate and necessary for the state to make it clear that this is not acceptable.”
“We thank Senator Finkbeiner and his colleagues in the senate for courageously standing up in favor of basic fairness and common decency,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero.
Log Cabin Republicans – Washington lobbied state lawmakers about this issue. That effort included distributing the Liberty Education Forum’s white paper, “The Only Question That Matters: Do People Choose Their Sexual Orientation?” Log Cabin also worked with Equality Washington to secure passage of this important legislation.
Washington will become the 17th state to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and the 7th state based on gender identity. The amended bill went back to the House for concurrence and passed on a 61-37 vote. The governor indicated that she will sign the bill next Tuesday, January 31.
###
Log Cabin Republicans promotes legislation to provide basic fairness for gay and lesbian Americans and works to build a more inclusive GOP. The 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.