The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.
It [the State] must use that power to prevent the subversion of children towards this [homosexual] lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.
What power? That power
refers to the power of the sword
allegedly carried by the State. The power of the sword
is glossed as the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution.
If Moore did not intend for readers to understand him as claiming that the physical penalties
with which homosexual behavior
could be punished could reasonably include confinement and even execution,
(that being a natural reading of the standard English phrase such as
) then he should not have used those specific examples to illustrate his meaning, and he should not have simply left it at that without suggesting any limits at all on the sort of physical punishment that the State might employ.
I should note that any form of physical punishment
for homosexual behavior
— not just confinement or death — is absolutely barbaric. However, the fact that Moore quite happily suggests using the harshest powers of the hangman State against gay people who have attacked no-one and violated no-one’s rights, should give some kind of indication of what kind of person he is. And the fact that none of his supporters are willing to openly condemn his explicit praise of State-sanctioned physical violence against peaceful gay people should give you some kind of indication of what kind of people they are, too.
I think using physical violence against gay people, just for being gay, is wrong. Including physical violence supposedly authorized by the State, and especially physical violence that can include confinement and even death. The reason being that it’s wrong to assault and murder peaceful people.
What do you think?
]]>Mullins’ post goes on at length about the Ten Commandments issue. But the letter to which Mullins’ was putatively responding is not about the Ten Commandments; it’s about Roy Moore’s chilling public comments, in which he declared that the State would be acting within its moral and legal perogatives to imprison and slaughter people who have violated no-one’s rights, but who happen to be homosexual. Those of us who are not so enthusiastic about a policy of Holocaust against the gay community are understandably concerned about Roy Moore’s words. And Roy Moore’s supporters still won’t say whether they agree or disagree with the words.
What conclusion are we supposed to draw? That they privately disagree with Moore’s words, but are unwilling to confront him because they think it would undermine campaigns of Moore’s with which they agree? That they just don’t care one way or the other about it, and so shift the subject to other issues? Or that they privately agree with Moore’s bloodthirsty sentiments, but dishonestly conceal their opinions because they know that it’s not palatable to the general public?
It’s hard to say which of these three interpretations is the least charitable understanding of the behavior of Moore’s supporters. But in the absence of Moore supporters willing to clearly say anything at all about Moore’s comments on homosexuality, and who are constantly eager to change the subject to something completely different from the topic of the letter to which they are responding, it seems nearly impossible to avoid adopting one of these conclusions.
]]>Look at it this way. If Christians are wrong and the end is to rot under ground, then the worst we’ve lost is participation in behaviors that cause unhappiness and grief, illnesses and often death, and we’ve gained while we were here by making the world a little better by loving everybody. We’ve had something that eased our problems and helped us get ourselves and others through situations caused by those who do indulge in behavior which fails to set good standards and causes pain for themselves and others. We’ve helped people in need; we’ve been happy. On the other hand, if the Bible is absolutely true and you don’t believe………any intelligent person can see the difference.
In this case, Roy Moore has the courage of his convictions and I greatly admire his knowledge and understanding of the law. I have the feeling that some of the people who write in are saying what they’ve been taught, not what they’ve learned. Why not look into what he says and actually determine for yourself whether he’s right? If nothing else you’ll get some new arguments for your appeals.
And what’s wrong with keeping your personal behavior private? Why try to influence others? I feel so sorry and grieved for those individuals I’ve seen whose lives were being cut short by AIDs. Regardless of how right it seems for you, wouldn’t it be more loving to hope that others escape it?
Whatever you decide, say or do, I ask that God will bless your life.
]]>He is promoting an idol to be worshipped as do fundamentalist Christians when they try to make the bible the infallible word of God.
Roy Moore uses his alleged faith to promote himself. He has a very big ego and his only God is himself.
]]>