False teacher says God is wrong. Again.

In Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Time To End A Moral Disgrace, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie goes beyond his usual blasphemy.

We can pray that marriage equality will be the next big step forward but it will take a lot of work to overcome the hateful and bigoted advocacy of political groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

So typical of Chuck to just call people haters because he can’t argue on biblical or rational grounds.  The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And I defy anyone to actually listen to Focus on the Family shows for a month then come convince me how hateful they are.

And of course, “marriage equality” is an empty sound bite designed to make you take his side.  But two men “marrying” will never be equal to a male / female couple.

Discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is no better than discrimination against people based on the color of their skin.

That is another pathetic canard.  Skin color is morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.  Chuck makes a mockery of the struggles of the real civil rights movement.

It wasn’t that long ago that African-Americans were not allowed to serve with white soldiers and inter-racial marriage was outlawed.

That argument proves nothing.  Just because some things should be changed doesn’t mean all things should be changed.  Using his logic, we have considered incest and pedophilia to be wrong but inevitably Chuck and the UCC will look back and realize how “God is still speaking” and they’ll rationalize those behaviors (“born that way,” “equality,” “hate speech!,” “justice,” “reconciliation,” blah blah blah — can’t you just see it coming?).  Nothing would surprise me from a guy who takes his young daughters to gay pride parades.

Conservative Christians, sadly, sided with white supremacists during the battle for racial equality . . .

Not this conservative Christian.  And does he think that William Wilberforce was a theological liberal like himself?  And sadly, pro-aborts like Chuck are the ones who make the 3x ratio of black / white abortions possible and who want to make it higher via taxpayer-funded abortions (apparently in the UCC world God is still speaking about how pro-abortion Jesus is as well).

He even uses the UCC  (Unitarians Coveting your Cash) slogan that “God is still speaking” (as if they knew what He said to begin with) with the gay pride rainbow.

For those who do care what the real God says, it couldn’t be more clear:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Even many in the pro-gay theology camp concede that point.  They just think the Bible isn’t the word of God.  Just like Chuck and the UCC.  We even have a term for people like them: Non-Christians.

Of course we should be loving and kind to gays and lesbians, just like we should to everyone else.  But if you really care about people you won’t encourage them in behavior that God says is wrong.  People like Chuck love themselves and the world, not gays.  Anytime you teach the opposite of what God says you are on the wrong side of the issue.

For more information on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” issue that the mainstream media and fake Christians will never tell you, see Congress’ Christmas Lump of Coal for Troops – Open Homosexuality?

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “False teacher says God is wrong. Again.”

  1. “Skin color is morally neutral while sexual behavior is not. Chuck makes a mockery of the struggles of the real civil rights movement.”

    To bad science disagrees with you on that one, you know like the findings that show the strong link between genetics and homosexuality.

    “That argument proves nothing. Just because some things should be changed doesn’t mean all things should be changed. Using his logic, we have considered incest and pedophilia to be wrong”

    So I guess that because your goofy religion doesn’t think homosexuality is OK, everyone else has to agree with you? You also make a logical fallacy comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Homosexuality takes place between two consenting adults, children do not have the cognitive ability to give consent to an adult.

    “For those who do care what the real God says, it couldn’t be more clear:”

    Thats the thing, a lot of us DON’T care. You are religious and think wieners in butts are gross, great, thats your prerogative. But Christians aren’t the only religion in this country, and there are people such as myself who do not believe in the magical fantasy world you have set up. The fact remains that laws should be based on logic and reason, not from some book written thousands of years a go.

    Like

    1. To bad science disagrees with you on that one, you know like the findings that show the strong link between genetics and homosexuality.

      Science disagrees that all sexual behavior isn’t morally neutral? I take it you are pro-pedophilia and incest as well. Hey, pedophiles probably always liked little kids, even when they were little kids. And science has disproved genetic causes over and over.

      So I guess that because your goofy religion doesn’t think homosexuality is OK, everyone else has to agree with you?

      Ignoring the “goofy” ad hom (as if atheism isn’t goofy), who said everyone has to agree with me? Let’s play that back for you: “So I guess that because your goofy non-religion thinks homosexuality is OK, everyone else has to agree with you?” Great argument on your part, eh?

      You are religious and think wieners in butts are gross

      Yes on both counts, but I thought that for the first 28 years of my life before I was religious. Toilet paper is a big industry. People spend lots of time and money keeping feces as far from their outer skin as possible, and for good reasons.

      But Christians aren’t the only religion in this country, and there are people such as myself who do not believe in the magical fantasy world you have set up.

      So your objection is to Chuck Currie, who is using his “religion” (a fake form of Christianity) to advance his public views. I can argue for DADT and against oxymoronic “same sex marriage” without religion. Chuck is the one trying to force his religious beliefs on you, but oddly you don’t take offense to that.

      The fact remains that laws should be based on logic and reason, not from some book written thousands of years a go.

      The age of a book has nothing to do with whether it is true. I’m all for logic and reason, and I understand the 1st Amendment and how it protects, not restricts, my rights to have my religious views inform my political views. Try that logic and reason.

      Like

    2. P.S. My religious beliefs are grounded in facts and logic as well — http://tinyurl.com/ykzpu42

      Summary of the “minimal facts” approach: Nearly 100% of historical scholars from 1975 – present agree with the following statements:

      Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross.
      Jesus’ disciples believed He appeared to them.
      Jesus’ brother, James, went from being a pre-crucifixion skeptic to a post-crucifixion church leader.
      The Apostle Paul believed Jesus appeared to him and he wrote most of the books attributed to him, including Romans, I & II Corinthians, Philemon and others. He converted from persecuting Christians to being the greatest evangelist ever, despite nearly constant challenges, persecution and ultimately dying for his faith.
      75% of the same scholars agree that the tomb was empty.

      I submit that the physical resurrection of Jesus best accounts for these facts.

      Like

    3. Mr. Adversary wrote, “The fact remains that laws should be based on logic and reason, not from some book written thousands of years a go.”

      It’s not a fact, it’s merely an assertion, and I would love to see the argument from logic and reason that dictates that a written work’s validity is a function of its age.

      I can only assume that those who state this assertion as fact denigrate the study of geometry, since the field is rooted in the writings of Euclid, from 2,300 years ago.

      Like

    4. “To bad science disagrees with you on that one, you know like the findings that show the strong link between genetics and homosexuality.”

      Please to be showing these findings. To my knowledge there has been nothing even remotely approaching a “gay gene” found to date.

      And even if there was, let’s flip the question around – if a “pedophile gene” were found, would that make pedophilia ok?

      Like

      1. Whoops, I should probably read the replies before commenting myself – looks like Neil and I are on the same wavelength 🙂

        Like

  2. Neil, a rather simple analogy has occurred to me, one that could be presented graphically, with stock images that are easily found through Google.

    The radicals (and, really, nihilsts) like to suggest that we should radically redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because we correctly overturned laws prohibiting mixed marriages.

    By that logic, we should make public restrooms unisex because we correctly eliminated racially segregated restrooms.

    Here’s where the two images come in.

    1) An image of Jim Crow-era restrooms, one labeld “Whites” and one labeled “Coloreds.”

    2) An image of modern restrooms, one labeled “Men” and the other labeled “Women.”

    Never mind that interracial marriage has existed for millennia — much further back than Othello, all the way back to Ruth — and “gay marriage” is an intrinsic contradiction in terms.

    The analogy between the two ONLY works if we feel — or we SHOULD feel — revulsion at BOTH images, at the fact that there were “Colored” rest rooms and that there still are “Women’s” restrooms.

    The analogy between interracial marriage — which has existed for mil

    Like

    1. Simple: it’s useful for them.

      If you can convince people that your radical political agenda is consistent with Christian doctrine — or, better yet, that it’s the necessary consequence of orthodoxy — then you can fool people into thinking that that agenda is reasonable, benign, and well within what is considered conventional.

      It’s a form of hijacking, really. Radicals in decades past, from the Jacobins in France to the overt radicals of the Sixties, have had the goal to destroy traditional institutions. They derided organized religion as the “opiate of the masses” and sought to tear it down to help bring about their glorious revolution.

      Now, the goal is not destruction from without, it’s SUBVERSION FROM WITHIN. You can see the transition in William Ayers, who helped launch Obama’s political career: he is an unreptant domestic terrorist who now works as a college professor because, in Ayers’ own words to Hugo Chavez, “La educacion es revolucion.”

      These false Christians portray themselves as humanists, but they shamelessly and consistently lie to our faces, and so they show a fundamental disrespect for human beings they claim to love. They don’t want to persuade us, they want to manipulate us. (I would also add that it’s less about our lives being made better, and more about our lives being put more in others’ control.)

      I not only doubt their respect for other people, I question their reverence to God Himself. One can make sincere errors about God and do so in good faith, but I’m stunned at some people’s willingness to flat out lie about God and His revealed word.

      It gives the distinct impression that they don’t fear God’s judgment against such behavior.

      Neil, we both know that Currie’s only an example of the radical collectivists who are trying to subvert the Christian gospel and church to their agenda. He’s not the only traitor that you and I both know.

      Like

  3. I really can’t stand how things so called loving white liberals always belittle blacks for their own gain. So me, being a black female walking down the street, is the same as a man having sex with another one? Yeah, right. Get out of here. I don’t know why homosexuality have to be a genetic behavior for it to be valid. If nothing is wrong with it, why can’t it be a choice. I wish someone would come to my face and tell me some bullcrap that gay rights is the same as civil rights. Have not had that to happen so far. Sorrry Neil for that rant. There are black gays now embracing that argument but I’m have gay friends that really don’t buy into that foolishness.

    Like

  4. One can almost forgive the homosexuals themselves for their attempts to gain acceptance and tolerance for their behaviors. No one wants to be seen as evil, wicked or just plain wrong for simply wanting to enjoy something that to them is benign. That they are wrong in their beliefs and offer nothing more tangible and truthful in their arguments and defense than that they simply want to do it without being told it is wrong is about the only thing that can be legitimately presented as “normal”, since no one wants to be wrong about anything to which they so strongly cling.

    But for the Curries of the world to pretend that there is some justification either Biblically or biologically is beyond wrong, but evil itself as it parades around as light with their sorry claims of devotion to God and His Word. From such who bastardize the faith we also get secular leaders, politicians, who may rely on such false teaching to justify their own self-promoting votes on legislation.

    In my own sorry state of Illinois, we have recently had our House vote to allow civil unions, and the governor has sworn to sign such crap into law. This was also done in a lame-duck action and several Republicans voted in favor, including my own rep, Suzi Bassi, who didn’t get my vote last November and will be replaced by a social conservative come January. We had a “Republican” take Obama’s former seat in the US Senate, formerly held by the waste-oid Rolan Burris. Mark Kirk, for whom I also didn’t vote, has just decided to support repeal of DADT. No big surprise since he takes pride in being a “social moderate”. (Definition of “moderate”: no spine.)

    Our first grandchild is due in March. Her father is an atheist and sees no issues with homosex marriage. Her mother’s position on such matters is unknown to me, but she seems to sail on the wind of her husband’s beliefs. By the time my granddaughter is in school, what will she be taught about right vs wrong? I shudder to think. None are so responsible for such things as those who are in the position of guiding the moral direction of their flocks.

    The Curries of the world like to think that true Christians are hateful and bigoted for our stance in support of truthful Christian teaching. Of course that isn’t in the least bit true. But for myself, I’m having difficulty not feeling such harsh emotion toward the Curries of the world. They should know better. God forgive me. God forgive them.

    Like

    1. The biggest enemies of Christianity aren’t the New Atheists and other religions. They are the Currie types who have infiltrated the organization and are destroying it from the inside.

      Congratulations on the coming grandchild! Hope the parents change their views.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s