I recently wrote about the effects of redefining marriage to eliminate the intrinsic "opposite sex" nature of it and fold in the concept of "same-sex couples". My intent was to answer the question that is so often thrown at us: "What difference does it make to you?" And I gave some answers.
There is another answer that I didn't mention, but is really quite large. It's not an answer that those who disagree with me will appreciate. Nor is it a secular answer. But neither is it a minor one.
I am called by my Master to make disciples. All followers of Christ are so tasked. My task is to share the Gospel, to share the call of God on people to repent and to come to Him in faith and receive the glorious salvation that is found in Christ. It's a phenomenal message, going from damned to saved, from lost to found, from under the wrath of God to His loving arms. It's a beautiful message and a necessary message and a great commission. You see, there is some really bad news out there. We're sinners. We're deserving punishment. The crime is massive -- a violation of God Himself -- so the punishment is eternal. As a result, the solution is equally massive.
If society, then, decides to normalize same-sex relationships as wonderful and good by conferring the term "marriage" upon them, where will they be? The Bible lists same-sex relationships as the bottom rung, the farthest reach of sin. Well, not quite the farthest. Paul says that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions" (Rom 1:26-27) which included the exchange of the natural sexual relations for the unnatural, of women for women and men for men. The farthest point, however, was the "debased mind" (Rom 1:28-32). This is what I call "the insanity of sin". No longer capable of thinking straight, they not only engage in the worst practices, but "give approval to those who practice them." And there it is.
What difference will it make to me if marriage is ripped from its moorings and scuttled in favor of a new term that includes "same-sex couples"? It means that our society is giving approval to those who practice them. It means that the culture in which I live has surrendered the capability to reason on these matters, has been handed over to "the debased mind". It means that my compassionate call for repentance from these things will be heard as an assault on what they consider approved. It means that pointing to the need for Christ in these matters will be rebuffed as bigotry and hate rather than the genuine desire I have for their salvation.
As marriage gets redefined in America today, voices like mine will be silenced either by force or by being ignored while the sin mounts up as not only allowable, but approved. That is, in fact, the intent of this movement, isn't it? It's not about "civil unions" because that term doesn't give them the approval they desire. No, it's about taking the term "marriage" for their own because then they will have the approval they want. And people like me, deeply concerned for their welfare as they stand against the God of the universe, will be relegated to "hater" and "homophobe" while they march with pride into Hell. That causes me great pain.
26 comments:
marriage gets redefined in America today, voices like mine will be silenced either by force or by being ignored
On this, we agree. Not the "by force" part, but on the being ignored. Within our life time, marriage equity will be the norm and those who think it is wrong will be relegated to an increasingly smaller and older subset of folk who are considered irrelevant, at least on this point.
Those who still remain opposed to marriage equity will be thought of as sad remnants who still hold on to old biases, much in the same way that there are still a small few who are opposed to "mixed race" marriage (because, they say, the Bible tell us so).
People will sadly shake their heads at that sort of immorality of this increasing minority and they WILL be ignored. Considered irrelevant. AND, any other positions they may hold (their belief in Christ, for instance) will be held suspect.
Welcome to the future.
Man, oh, man, you hit it squarely on the head. As "marriage" gets erased and "marriage equity" becomes the norm, meaning "We get to redefine the terminology that everyone uses to suit our own choices" (how that is "equity" eludes me), the notion of "marriage" as it was intended will become unknown and the notion of sin will become something to ignore, where "People will sadly shake their heads at that sort of immorality". And people will go to Hell warmly encouraged by a majority.
The problem, Stan (and I'll go back away after this) is that you appear to be conflating "being honestly mistaken in seeking the good" with "going to hell." People don't "go to hell" because they are mistaken on a point.
Christians every day sincerely try to follow in Christ's steps sometimes make mistakes. IF I and the early church for the first ~300 years and the anabaptists and many others are correct and Christians are wrong to participate in war, the great majority of modern Christians who support Christians warring will not go to hell for being sincerely mistaken.
We aren't saved by our perfect knowledge. If it turns out that YOU are mistaken on marriage equity and your awful, awful - but sincere - behavior has turned many people away from Christ, God forgive us all, you won't go to hell for being mistaken, will you?
Thank God for the grace by which we are saved, even though we don't deserve it.
You'd have a much stronger standing on defending your position, Stan, if you'd at least begin from a position of grace and acknowledge that folk supporting marriage equity are only seeking the good. At the very worst, we're sincerely mistaken and are mistaken because we THOUGHT we were supporting goodness, fidelity, holiness, love and justice. And, at the very worst, no one is going to hell for being mistaken on a behavior.
That is not the Christian position on grace. As your next post rightly points out: We are to speak the truth IN LOVE. Failing to recognize the righteous intentions of people whom you have a hunch are mistaken and suggesting they're going to hell over disagreeing with your hunches is NOT "in love," and certainly not of God's grace.
Fair enough?
Fair enough. Those sincere folk who were simply mistaken when they said, "Lord, Lord, look what we've done in Your name" -- "being honestly mistaken in seeking the good" -- came out just fine. Jesus told them, "I know that you were sincere and simply mistaken, so ... no harm, no foul." I remember the text well.
"Are you saying, then, that only the perfect get to heaven?" (I can hear the objection now.) Not at all. I'm simply agreeing with Scripture when it says, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). Can a true Christian be mistaken and go to heaven? No doubt. Can a true believer sin? John himself affirms that (1 John 1:8-2:2). But if a person makes a practice of sin -- justifies it, applauds it, continues in it even after it is clearly demonstrated to be such -- then Scripture (not me) suggests "No one who practices sin has seen Him or knows Him" (1 John 3:6).
Now, my point has been that as long as sin is recognized as sin, then pointing it out is easy and calling someone to repent is easy. When you (not "Dan Trabue", but all who make the claim you make) deny the plain Scriptures and call sin "good" and even affirm and legitimize it by rending "marriage" from its moorings and applying it to this relationship, then the voice that says "The Bible says it's sin" is silenced, the sin can proceed unheeded, and the good news of salvation from that sin is negated.
And you would have a much stronger standing on your defending of your position if you would acknowledge what the courts have acknowledged and what all history has acknowledged that marriage has a definition that excludes "same sex". You continue to call it "marriage equity". At least admit that you're redefining it for the purpose of altering history.
One more, then, since you seem to be missing my point:
SO, if it turns out you were mistaken on marriage equity (which I'm sure you are), or on Christians and war, or no investment or any other behaviors on which I'm thinking you're mistaken: IF that was the case, then you have "continued in sin" and you are therefore NOT (by your own standard of graceless Christianity) saved, you will be hell-bound for your "continuing in sin," is that what you're saying?
Is that really the graceless, works-oriented position on which you wish to hang your hat, brother Stan?
Tell me, please, your honest opinion: IF it turns out you were mistaken your whole life on those positions, do you really think you're doomed?
I have indicated that those who commit the sin are guilty of the sin. I have not referenced you in my concern for the eternal salvation of those who practice homosexual behavior ... because as far as I know you are not doing so. Nor am I a Christian at war or a Christian committing homosexual behavior or a Christian attempting to redefine marriage to make it "equitable" (where "equitable" apparently means "what we want it to mean without any regard for what you think"). Since I am not committing the sins about which you are speaking, I cannot be said to be making a practice of them, now, can I? Nor have I once said that perfect theology is required for salvation.
And is it really an "anything goes" "as long as I claim grace it doesn't matter what I do or believe" position on which you wish to hang your hat?
Worse, you have not responded to Scripture that says, "He who is born of God cannot practice sin," the key point of my concern. Your view appears to be ... well ... that John was wrong. He was entirely mistaken and genuine believers, filled with the Spirit, are perfectly capable of practicing sin. And, of course, you made no attempt at admitting that your goal is to redefine marriage. So ... why are we continuing this discussion ... after you assured me "and I'll go back away after this"?
Dan continues to ply this sadly pathetic, "mistaken" defense, as if he truly is. He is not "mistaken". He is in rebellion. He has NOT provided incontrovertible evidence in support of his position. His "arguments" have always provoked even more objections, questions and rebuttals which remain unanswered, gaping holes in what for him passes as logic, reason and "sincere" pursuit of God's Will. There is no mistake possible where Scripture is so crystal clear, without one being mentally deficient or morally dishonest. There are no other possibilities. His extremely lame offerings, such as Christians going to war, are as poorly inferred, but without any "Thou shalt nots" by which to support it.
Your blog's last sentence was played out marvelously when Dan commented on your post...you said:
"And people like me, deeply concerned for their welfare as they stand against the God of the universe, will be relegated to "hater" and "homophobe" while they march with pride into Hell."
And then in the nicest way he called you a homophobe and called your belief in the clear Scriptures a "hunch".
Your "March with pride" comment seemed to fit as well...
Yeah, you got that "march with pride" reference. I didn't know if anyone would.
Since my name is being falsely invoked, I will offer a response to the false charges.
Marshall said...
Dan continues to ply this sadly pathetic, "mistaken" defense, as if he truly is.
If you're saying I'm NOT mistaken, Marshall, we agree. I think I'm right on this point, biblically, morally and rationally.
However, if you're suggesting I don't truly believe what I believe, that I hold my position out of "rebellion" as you wrongly suggested, well, that is just a blatant falsehood. I DO believe what I believe and you are simply mistaken to suggest that you know better what I believe than I do.
Marshall...
He is not "mistaken".
Agreed!
Marshall...
He is in rebellion.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm NOT in rebellion. Rebellion means I KNOW that something is right and am deliberately choosing to do other than the right. This is simply not the case and it is a bearing of false witness to suggest otherwise, brother. I TRULY BELIEVE that marriage - loving, respectful, faithful commitment to another adult - is a good and blessed thing, regardless of orientation. Now, you can keep thinking I'm WRONG, but what you can't honestly do is say that I don't actually believe what I believe. You just sound foolish, divisive and like an overt liar when you do that.
starflyer said...
And then in the nicest way he [Dan] called you a homophobe and called your belief in the clear Scriptures a "hunch".
? I did not call Stan a homophobe. I did not allude to him being a homophobe. You're reading more into what I've said than is there.
I DO disagree with Stan's HUNCH (the HUNCH that marriage equity is wrong) - and it IS a hunch because it's his opinion on a topic on which God has not spoken. ANY TIME we offer our OPINION on any topic on which God has not spoken, it is a HUNCH, by definition.
You are always welcome to your opinion, but we ought to be very careful not to conflate OUR HUNCHES with God's Word. Your opinions and God's Word are not one in the same.
It's not a hunch that Jesus defined marriage this way: "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." It's not a hunch that every last reference to marriage in the Bible is in terms of husband and wife. Nor is it a hunch that all civilizations for all time have always had the same definition of "man and woman" for marriage. Now it is a hunch that the Bible didn't actually mean that, and that marriage could mean other things, and that all of history was wrong on that point, but that's not my hunch.
Dan,
You like to ask questions like, "If it turns out you were mistaken..." Speculation is fun, but often a waste of time. The fact is that you ARE mistaken, and what's more, you KNOW you are mistaken but continue to play this game of "what ifs". I have stated before and do so again now: there is no way an honest person can find Scriptural support for homosexual behavior and thus, none for homosexual "marriages". This is true because no such support exists in a Book that ALWAYS speaks negatively of homosexual behavior, regardless of the context in which it takes place, and ALWAYS refers to marriage as one man/one woman with no possibility for other arrangements. Saying you've found some is a lie since every argument you've presented has been exhaustively exposed for the crap each argument is. They exist at all by the strength of your willingness to infer what is not the least bit suggested by Scripture ever.
Yes, I know exactly what you are doing. Better than you do? That depends on the extent of your self-deception. You are in rebellion because you KNOW you are wrong.
But Stan, it IS your hunch. The TEXT does not say "Jesus defined marriage this way." Jesus SPOKE about WHY men should not leave their wives, because he was addressing an actual real world problem that resulted in an oppressed, impoverished group of people. In addressing that problem, Jesus said, "THIS is why men marry women: To STAY with them forever, and not leave them."
Jesus is NOT "defining" marriage, there. That is YOUR reading INTO the text something that isn't there.
Now, we could discuss how reasonable that hunch is, but IT REMAINS YOUR HUNCH. If you say it isn't a hunch one million more times, it will remain a hunch.
If you don't like me pointing out hunches, then don't make them. I gladly own up to my hunches and you know why? Because it's critical to not conflate OUR OPINIONS with God's Word. The Bible condemns such behavior, you'll recall.
Marshall,
To be fair, I do not see any evidence that Dan knows he is mistaken. He appears to sincerely believe that his view -- contrary to Scriptural evidence and historical evidence -- is the right view. You may certainly be correct about "self-deception", but I don't think it's accurate to say "you KNOW you are mistaken."
Dan,
This false accusation of "hunches" is easy to dispel. Simply offer one, single, solitary reference in any piece of Scripture that gives the slightest hint of "marriage" as anything but "man and woman". If, for instance, the question in Jesus's time was "When is it okay to divorce?" (because that was the question) and Jesus did not intend to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (because defining "marriage" isn't necessarily required to answer the divorce question, right?), then why did He use the terms, "man" and "woman"? They were not built into the question, but they were included in the answer. And as often as you like to tout the "Jesus never said" line of reasoning, in this case you have specifically decided to ignore what He did say.
Look, the question was "When is it okay to divorce?" and Jesus's response, in essence, was "Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, so when that happens, it's never okay to tear it apart." He used the definition to explain the reason for His answer -- never.
And if you say that the Bible is silent on the subject a million more times ... you will still be wrong.
Since every biblical reference to marriage includes "husband and wife", "male and female", and since every culture and society since the beginning of time has solely recognized that to be the case, your "hunch" that it's not the case is weightless in its support and supremely arrogant in its presence. "Yes, I know that all of history and all of Scripture disagrees with me; that's why I know I'm right and anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong."
One other reason for me not to put a lot of weight on your emaciated understanding of Scripture on the topic is that you don't seem to be able to stop responding when you say you will stop responding. "I'll go away after this" was, what, 3 days ago? I have not misrepresented your view, but you keep coming back. What's up with that? (That's a rhetorical question that does not require that you comment again.)
One other thing. No, you didn't call me a "homophobe". You simply accomplished the same thing that doing so would accomplish. Your aim was to marginalize my view. Not to understand, comprehend, even tolerate, but to set it aside as not worth hearing. You called it "immorality". Starflyer was right on that point; you did your own version of "homophobe" by calling a biblical stance "immoral".
Watch closely, Stan and anyone else, and see where Stan parts from "the text says..." to "I THINK IT MEANS..."
Look, the question was "When is it okay to divorce?" and Jesus's response, in essence, was "Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, so when that happens, it's never okay to tear it apart." He used the definition to explain the reason for His answer -- never.
SAYS YOU, Stan. YOU are saying that Jesus offered that as a definition, complete and all-inclusive and never to be challenged, BUT JESUS DID NOT SAY THAT.
Do you all see where you move from "the text says..." to your own flawed human wisdom? That is a fine hunch and we could talk about how reasonable or wise it is, BUT IT REMAINS YOUR HUNCH, Stan. That's all. Your hunch.
And I apologize for revisiting the topic, but you fixate so much on this topic in such an anti-biblical, pro-human-wisdom sort of way that I sometimes feel compelled to respond.
I do thank you for pointing out the flawed false testimony from Marshall, I appreciate that and it saves me from having to defend myself against another false charge.
And no, Stan, I am not striving to marginalize your view. I was agreeing with you that YOU are marginalizing your own views, that YOU ("you all," the collective fundamentalist-ish "you") are going to be, as you said "ignored" and treated in much the same way that people treat anti-miscegenationists today. Your view is one that, right or wrong, will soon be dismissed as immoral and gravely, ridiculously mistaken.
As YOU said, folk will soon totally ignore you all, and that's the reason why. Because YOU have marginalized your views, by your inherently immoral and irrational hunches about marriage (or what the people at large view as immoral and irrational).
Barring any further misrepresentations, I am going away again.
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
For the living of these days,
For the living of these days
Watch closely, everyone. I want you to see just where Dan makes his mistake. It's right there at 12:53 PM on 7/03/2011 when he decided he needed to comment again after assuring us, "I'll go back away after this." From there on it just got deeper.
He said, "People will sadly shake their heads at that sort of immorality" and then backpedals with "I am not striving to marginalize your view." That is, "I said it was immoral, but I don't mean to marginalize it. I know that the entire weight of Church history and human history all define marriage in the way that you do, but yours is an 'increasing minority', 'sad remnants' of racist-like bigots." Note that he called it "fundamentalist", a term that is never used in public as anything but an insult.
And it's not like I'm making this up. While he assures me that he's not trying to marginalize my view, he repeats that it is "immoral and irrational". Immoral and irrational, you know, the view that the courts have called "the longstanding traditional definition". The only view found in the Bible. And all this without a single opposing Scripture or even call back to history. I won't even comment on the vast gap between "sexual preference" and "mixed race marriage". No, he's not trying to marginalize my view. He's simply telling me that it's bigoted, outdated, irrelevant, immoral, opinionated, "flawed human wisdom" ... but he did not say, "homophobic". Whew! Got that settled.
So, there it is. I don't suppose I should have to hear anything else from Dan on this topic because he has proved himself honest, eloquent, and compelling.
Stan, I keep saying I'll go away WITH THE CAVEAT that no one misrepresent my views. I think it is reasonable to defend one's position when it has been misrepresented. Do you disagree?
Then, where you say...
While he assures me that he's not trying to marginalize my view, he repeats that it is "immoral and irrational".
I DO think that your views are immoral and irrational. You can add to that, Unbiblical. That IS my position. But by pointing out my position, I STILL am not trying to "marginalize" your position. I REPEAT: YOU are marginalizing all your positions because of the irrationality and immorality of your take on this point.
As YOU SAID, you (you all) "will be silenced... by being ignored." I AGREE with you, Stan. You WILL be ignored. I was just pointing out the reason you WILL be ignored: Because of your positions, which marginalize you (ie, YOUR positions will push you off to the margins.)
So, it is wrong to say that I am trying to marginalize you, when it is your positions which marginalize you and that's because, increasingly, the majority of folk are seeing the irrationality and immorality of being OPPOSED TO marriages for all, where folk can engage in the objective good of fidelity, respect and love.
I hope that clears it up for you so that you can NOW understand my actual position (which you could get to if you stuck to reading my words and understanding them for what I actually said).
To the rest of my readers ... need I say more? When agreeing with the explicit texts of Scripture is classified as "immoral and irrational" by someone who calls himself a Christian, I don't think it is necessary to comment further.
To Starflyer, I think your comment is vindicated.
To Dan, when you complain about me "playing word games" and then claim "I'm not marginalizing you; you are", I think you've illustrated that which you dislike.
One more thing, Dan. Since you've said nothing new and suggested no Scripture or evident reason for your views, I see no reason to post any further comments from you, at least on this topic. I would suggest you return to your intention of not commenting -- from which you've fallen.
I sort of like when Dan posts, at least it is interesting...though he over does it. And I don't know why I continue to be shocked when he calls agreeing with clear Scripture immoral, but I still am. He's definitely proudly marching...well, in the wrong direction.
The sad part is that he may be right about one thing: true Christianity may become outlawed in our country, sadly with the help of people like him. He probably thinks our country is headed in the right direction, when clearly it is not.
When you make future posts like this, let Dan post for a while before you send him back to the shadows...I know, I know, he put himself there.
Starflyer,
You said,"The sad part is that he may be right about one thing: true Christianity may become outlawed in our country, sadly with the help of people like him."
Dan didn't say that and doesn't believe it.
That doesn't mean that it won't happen (given the rising number of court rulings against Christianity). That doesn't mean the people who think like he does won't contribute to it. But Dan just thinks that standing on Scripture as we do will make people ignore us. (I can only assume that he thinks that's a good thing because such a stand is immoral and irrational.)
And I normally don't block Dan's comments. Most of the time he comments to me with a note that includes, "Don't post this" or something to that effect. It's just when it gets lengthy, repetitive, and no longer saying anything but "You're wrong", or, of course, unfriendly that I stop it.
Of course Dan knows he's wrong. All sinners know they're wrong when they sin or support sin. It can't be helped no matter how much they try to deceive themselves. And of course he'll deny it. He'll insist he sincerely believes the lies he tells himself. But such people never really convince themselves completely because the beliefs rely on so many other lies and falsehoods, such as "the majority of folk" believe as he does. This certainly isn't true worldwide, and it hasn't proven true in any state where the people have been allowed to vote.
But I'll say no more about the subject here. Dan knows he's supporting a lie.
I will say this, though: if the nation totally gives up on defending truth, and the homosex lobby wins the day, we WILL be marginalized more and more. That's OK. If the whole world rejected God, the whole world would be immoral and doomed to damnation. If the whole world says OUR beliefs are immoral, the whole world will have damned itself. Numbers don't dictate morality and numbers don't out-vote God's clearly revealed Will. (The few. The saved.)
"Of course Dan knows he's wrong. All sinners know they're wrong when they sin or support sin."
I don't think I agree, Marshall. When Jesus references the false prophets who refer to Him as "Lord, Lord", the suggestion is that they believe that they are His prophets even if He never knew them. Paul talks about "the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared" (1 Tim 4:1-3). He says that "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4). I'd have to say, biblically, that it is not only possible, but certain that people who indulge and encourage sin as "good" are likely blinded and seared and are, at that stage, completely unaware that they're wrong. Paul describes this as "the debased mind" (Rom 1:28) and is a primary reason that he tells us to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom 12:2). Sin rots the brain.
I believe, of course, that Dan is wrong, but I don't have any reason to think that he knows he's wrong and is simply lying all this time.
Thanks for the defense, such as it was, Stan. I will point to this, though, with what I think is a very good question...
certain that people who indulge and encourage sin as "good" are likely blinded and seared and are, at that stage, completely unaware that they're wrong.
IF you believe this to be true, then how do you know YOU (ie, "you all") aren't wrongly interpreting God's Word, as I believe you to be doing, and that YOU are blindly encouraging sinful behavior by your position, and that YOU are the one who is wrongly convinced that you are right, because YOUR conscience has been seared?
I think this might make a very good post in itself, or at least ought to be considered by you who consider yourselves so righteous and "right." IF it is possible to be sincerely mistaken, then on what basis do you think you are the "right ones" on this topic? Is it because you are "holding to what the Bible says?" But then, I think I'm doing that, too. "But," would you say, "we are REALLY doing it, while you're not..."? But that is what I would say, too.
How do YOU KNOW you're not the one whose consciences are seared and who are blindly mistaken on this point?
Good point, Dan!
Rest assured, everybody, that we can't know anything and that all of us are confused ... probably all the time!
Dan, this repeated approach ("Maybe you're the one mistaken") without substance or support is frankly pointless. I can offer the biblical texts. I can offer the consistent interpretation of Church history. I can offer the longstanding traditional definition from all societies in all times past. You can ... suggest that you figured it out and hold that just about everyone for all time has been immoral and irrational.
Now, I suppose there is a remote possibility that I'm wrong and all who agree with me are wrong, that the Bible isn't clear and the Church has always been wrong and every culture in every time has been mistaken, but -- and, I admit, this may be over the top -- it seems to me that the overwhelming odds are against it. On the other hand, the sheer, unabashed arrogance that holds that position ("Maybe you're all mistaken") is quite stunning.
Since I believe in the sovereignty of God, in the Holy Spirit, in the intervention of the Spirit in the life of the believer, in the promise of Christ that the Spirit will lead His followers into all truth, in the certainty of John's epistle that those who are born of God are incapable of making a practice of sin, and since my beliefs line up with all of that and yours don't, I could think, "Hmm, maybe I'm wrong and all of that is not to be understood as written" ... but I won't.
But I do wonder, Dan. If you are quite sure that any one of us can be wrong at any time, why even make the argument? Why do the battle? Why continue to fight (with words) about it? You're not asking, "Am I wrong?" You're saying unequivocally, "You're all wrong." Why? (Rhetorical question. I'd rather you don't answer.)
"You're wrong, I'm right! Nyah, nyah" "But why am I wrong and you right?" "'Cause I just said it..didn't you just see it there? I'm right, you're wrong. VICTORY is MINE!" "Uhuh. So, because you said it first, you're right and I'm wrong? If I said it first, would I be right and you be wrong?" "No, I believe I am right, so I must be right. I believe you are wrong, so you must be wrong." "And the proofs you have for your rightness and my wrongness?" "I'm right, you're wrong." "Okay, lets just let you play in your corner."
As an aside, my word verification was "epuns" which I find amusing since we both love puns so much, and this is all electronic, thus e-puns. Thanks dad.
Jesus never said a word about being gay, but he did say, ""Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Luke 12:33-34).
Have you done this? If so, whose computer are you using? Do you live in a house?
Post a Comment