This is JohnnyInTheZone's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JohnnyInTheZone's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I just had an interesting thought I haven't seen written out anywhere. If someone claims that homosexuals have a "natural" proclivity to the same sex and therefore should not fight against their "natural" attraction, how do they then argue against the unique "natural" function of human reproduction that only involves a male and a female? They would say that two men or two women should be able to raise children, but on what grounds do they claim that? That is not how "nature" works. Children are born ONLY to a man and a woman; therefore, nature meant for children to be raised by a man and a woman. And if raising children is "naturally" to be done by a man and a woman, then an institution like marriage would be appropriate to encourage that "natural" relationship. I'd like to see others' thoughts on this.
@Sarah, just so you realize, the author of that "Bake for them two" blog post completely warps the meaning of Matthew 5 to try to get scriptural backing for her personal idea. This is a prime example of proof texting (going to the text with an idea and trying to prove it). Almost no one has recognized it in the comments of that article, which is not surprising, considering most people don't know how to properly interpret the Bible or even just simply read passages in context. Never read a Bible verse! (or passage, in this case) Jesus was instructing Jews to not react to common injustices with evil, but rather to "turn the other cheek" and treat them better than they deserve. The strange thing is that the author said that if they come to you and ask for one cake, you should bake them two. But in the passage, Jesus says you should go above and beyond, but only when someone treats you unjustly. So are the same-sex couple doing something unjustly to the Christian? This absurdity is lost on the Biblically illiterate. I won't even go down the road, as Brett did in his video, of all the situations that Jesus obviously didn't have in mind (carving two idols for a pagan instead of one). I don't think it's necessary to go down that path, since the author's argument falls apart when you realize how badly she misinterpreted the Matthew 5 passage. The blog post is a well-written, emotionally-appealing piece that unfortunately is all based on a misinterpretation of Matthew 5. Sadly, she is leading many people astray who, like her, don't know how to interpret scripture properly.
JohnnyInTheZone is now following The Typepad Team
Apr 8, 2015