[TruthTalk] Did Lot preach to Sodom?

[jandgtaylor1]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt: Within where?  Gary...My belief is that the scriptures are spiritually discerned rather than intellectual go: within both realms, J; i.e., it's biblically a 'both/and' situation; e.g., is your 'belief' intellectually viable? how so?   jt: I don't know Gary, I do know that I am totally opposed to Mr. Brooks thesis even aside from the question of covenant (which is a whole other subject in itself). The only point he makes that I agree with is the one in the first paragraph where he states (though not in the same words) that fornicating is committing spiritual suicide.  This is true.   Brooks then goes on to describe marriage as a 'sacred bond' and claims that this institution miraculously changes things when couched in what he refers to as a 'culture of fidelity' (committment) rather than a culture of contingency (chance/choice) which is what we are presently living in (which culture is blatantly immoral with heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual people choosing a series of partners rather than a committment to fidelity).     Books' solution to this problem is to make US government responsible to help move the culture from chance to moral committment by uniting homosexual men in this sacred bond of marriage - saying that we should not only allow this kind of marriage - we should insist on it.   The big problem with all this is that God is left out of the equation entirely.  An exclusive committment will not cause the profane to become holy/sacred or the immoral to miraculously become moral.  Man's freedom of choice (contingency) is God given along with the understanding that we will all reap the consequences and be held responsible for the choices we make in the sight of a holy God.  Our government has enough to deal with and homosexual marriage is also spiritual suicide - why encourage responsibility in this?   Judy        jt: Are you saying that your OT mentor agreed with Mr. Brooks ??   he's not a political conservative per se, but he may perceive (like i do) that DBs opinion/s eminating from the NYT staff is a rather interesting political paradigm; (i'll) check the upcoming NYT dailies (too)--maybe Dr Hubbard'll write (us) a response to DBs article   why don't you write one?