The Armageddon that wasn’t

Print More

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

Dan Pashman over at Slate ponders the decidedly quiet acceptance of gay marriage as increasing numbers of states move to legalize it. “The lack of outrage is striking,” he writes. “Forget the Armageddon we were promised. There’s hardly even been a press conference.” Why the muted response? Pashman offers a few thoughts: “Evangelicals may be […]

  • Trimelda

    Where have you been? There has been opposition to this all over the place. Proposition Eight comes to mind, for one! And now we have pastors being called upon to fight HR 1913 which would make standing up against homosexuality a hate crime. I for one will fight this bill tooth and nail and so will a lot of other pastors and bishops.

  • Lucy Wheeler

    You are quite right, We Christians are Resurrection people.
    We are beginning to accept what is happening all over the world. We know of God’s Mercy but we also know of God’s justice. Same sex marriage, abortion, tampering with life, (embrotic stem) all these are like spitting in God’s face. So now as well as Mercy we pray for justice and we know it will come. Remember “Man supposes but God disposes.”
    May God have Mercy on us.

  • jake

    “You Christians” sure do believe in a loving God! I tend to read the Gospels and their message of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice as evidence of God’s justice–and love for his creation. Hatred of what He created–which includes all of us, straight or gay, creationist or scientist–strikes me as more likely to be a spit in God’s face.

    God will have mercy on you. He already has.

  • Jim

    Jake, on what basis do you assert God created homosexuals?

  • Benjamin

    HR 1913 ( is about protecting the basic rights of all groups that have been vulnerable to hate crimes. It is difficult to believe that anyone could find something objectionable about it.

    Overall, the Christian response to gay marriage really has been quiet. I would imagine that with the first supposed signs of depravity in the northeast or Iowa or wherever, the response will pick up. If Christians are a resurrection people, they are also a signs-oriented people, and it takes very little time for a sign to make a splash.

  • Trimelda

    Hey, Benjamin, you want to know why Christians, (and Jews and Muslims and atheists etc)are objecting to this bill?

    Check this out:(from Atlas Shrugged Web Site)
    This is really kind of mind numbing and demonstrates what is wrong with Congress.

    During a House Judiciary Committee meeting, Congressman Steve King (R-IA) offered up an amendment to the hate crimes bill to exclude pedophiles from being a protected category under the hate crimes legislation.

    Every single Democrat voted it down.

    In the same meeting, Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected under the hate crimes bill. Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation. After all, who but Democrats in Congress hate veterans?

    You must contact your senators now to try to stop legislation that would protect “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” WND has it here:

    Congressman Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what that means, Porter wrote.

    There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

    If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he’s committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

    I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it’s not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

    And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they’ve committed a misdemeanor, you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

    Now do you think this is a joke by the Far Right or something?

    Look at the video:

    Paste it in and you will see why people are upset.

    And by the way, the Proposition 8 movement is largely supported by BLACK people. Read this letter for example:

    I just don’t believe (as is the majority of California voters) that you can equate a person’s race and sexual-preference as being one in the same, sorry!

    As a black male, that is NOT a bigot, I would appreciate if the gay community would NOT try and piggy-back racial issues as being equivalent to their own. They are NOT the same.


    So, why is it that everyone is screaming about mean ole Christians? Why the dead silence by the media about Black “homophobia”?
    That’s because everyone knows that the nasty comments to Christians about hate won’t fly when it’s directed to my fellow African Americans. Look at this:

    Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit.

    Can you EVEN imagine walking up into Rev. Dollar’s church, a Latino Catholic Church or even my church, (I’m a pastor) with that nonsense?????? Can you imagine anyone of these nuts walking out in one piece? At least we would try to counsel them but I wouldn’t bet on how healthy they would be if they persisted in their behaviors.

    This proves to me that while the individual people who SUFFER (yes, I used that verb)from the affliction of homosexuality are usually decent in the midst of their problems but the folks pushing this legal agenda are NOT trying to protect anyone but themselves.

  • Benjamin

    Trimelda, you should use quotation marks when citing material so that I know how to answer you.

    What I am reading up there is a series of the same absurd conclusions with a few unsubstantiated anecdotes that so many Christians throw around during these types of discussions. As for the legislation, if it could be shown that violence against people who have returned from war rivals the violence targeted against ethnic minorities or people with a same-sex orientation, the vote might have reflected that.

    My dad is a pastor. I grew up in a Christian church. I would be devastated if a group of anarchists invaded his sanctuary on a Sunday morning and did the things you described from that church in Lansing. I hope, however, that we all understand that anarchy and secularism are two distinct ideological movements with separate motivating factors and some pretty serious fundamental differences.

  • jake

    [“Jake, on what basis do you assert God created homosexuals?”]


    On the basis that homosexuals exist. Why does death exist? Violence? War? Love? Beauty?

    I don’t presume to understand the mind of God. I do presume to celebrate His creation in all its variety and glory, without judgment–it’s the judgment of humans on God’s creation that I find so presumptuous, but I know that that presumptuousness, too, exists, and I celebrate it as well.


  • Jim

    Jake, the items you sight in Christian theology are due to Man’s Fall. There is no evidience indicating they were part of God’s created intent. There is scriptural evidence indicating God’s approval of heterosexual marriage. Also, both old and new testaments hold active homosexuality to be sinful. The Fall explanation coupled with lack of Scriptural approval of homosexuality, coupled with it being sinful in both old and new indicate to me it is not what God wanted. Your argument is not sufficient to convince me.

  • Jim

    Jake, slight correction. I should have said most of the items you cite are due to Man’s fall – death, disease, disorder.

  • Benjamin

    I have to weigh in on this…

    Jim, most Christian theologians agree that whether or not God intended for humans to sin, God did create humans with free will. God intentionally created the potential for all kinds of human behavior, including homosexuality. Whether or not it’s right is where you both differ, and I would side with Jake in believing that, because there is nothing inherently harmful about a homosexual relationship, it should not fall into the category of what you would call “sin.”

    The Bible really does reflect a prejudice against homosexuality, not just “active homosexuality” as you said, but even homosexual inclination (Rom 1:26-27), which is why I am glad that our society does not rely on it as a moral compass.

  • Ben

    Ben, sorry but I don’t believe God desired humans to engage in sinful behavior. It was chosen by man as part of free will. God does not desire that man engage in war or murder or many things but we do. You are not omniscienct so I don’t know how you can say there is nothing inherently harmful about active homosexuality.Only God can determine this and has, I believe, revealed that it is harmful because His Word describes it as always wrong.
    I believe you reflect a prejudice against the bible.

  • Jim

    Ben and Jake, Did God intend/desire death for Man? If so, what do you base this on?

    Note: I cannot engage in conversation on this again until next Tuesday (only have access at work, not home).

  • Jim

    Ben, Death does have biological causes.Did God create death in Man? Or was it something that manifested itself after Man’s Fall and as a consequence of Man’s Fall?

  • Benjamin

    Disclaimer: I am not omniscient.

    And I AGREE entirely that the Bible has only disapproving messages when it comes to homosexuality, and I never said that God intended/desired for humans to sin or die, only that he created the potential through free will. That, as I understand it, is very central to Christian orthodoxy. I don’t believe in God but I do think this issue of God’s intent is very interesting:

    God must have known that he was creating the potential for sin and death, but free will must have been more important. If free will is so important, however, why are we punished for choosing incorrectly?

  • Benjamin

    In classic Christian theology death is a consequence of the Fall, right? Along with the pain of childbirth and farming, etc.

  • Veriseeker

    Interestingly, a lot of Christians believe we are entering the beginning of Endtimes. Acceptance of sin on a widespread basis is exactly one of the major signs of Armageddon approaching. Another is that Man (people) will become lovers of self; or feel they will decide what is right & wrong and not God or any church. They will do whatever the want and hedonism-sexual perversions are very tempting so they have become lawful. Very sad for the next generation.

  • Trimelda

    Benjamin, you are missing several points:

    1) Did you watch the video and read what the Rep said? The vote wasn’t just about vets being protected under that law. IT WAS ABOUT PEDOPHILIES. Do you believe that pedophiles should be protected as a group against hate speech and hate crimes as a persecuted minority?
    This is not some Christian blogger’s nightmare. This is a REAL bill being proposed in our Congress right now-to list pedophiles as persons who need to be protected in the same way as minorities.

    I am disgusted to think that the many children I have pastored who have been raped by their relatives or strangers are being shown that they are less protected than the folks who RAPED them. I live in the state where Brad Stowell raped 24 Boy Scouts and got two years probation. That travesty of a case was turned into a PBS special seen around the country and this vicious jerk would be protected under HR 1913 from the angry remarks by his victims and their parents.

    Is that justice?

    Please go back and re-read that story and watch that video. Then tell me that you feel this law is just and fair. How could any group feel okay about shielding these programmed monsters from their victims even being able to voice how they feel about them? If I were homosexual I would demand that this bill NOT protect baby rapers under the guise of protecting “rights.” Why aren’t the people pushing gay rights saying anything about this part of that bill? It makes it seem as if the accusation that homosexuality is a cover for pedophilia is true. I know it isn’t. But what can you say when every Democrat on that committee refused to kick pedophiles off that bill?
    What does that tell you about their intentions? Are we then canonizing NAMBLA as part of the movement for homosexual rights?
    How do you feel about that?

    2) About the hate crimes directed at vets-are you kidding me? My brother was a VietNam vet. Need I say more? Or are you too young to remember the way certain people spit on VietNam vets and called them “murderers?” I did not appreciate my Marine brother who lost the bottom part of his face to the metallic spray from a mine AND his left arm being called names. He was not drafted. He volunteered to served. Yet the reception he got when he came back in pieces was a disgrace. I did not appreciate the way people tried to run over homeless vets and call them “losers” because they served their country. I do not think it is funny that people love vets in public and then slam them behind closed doors.

    Did you know that many of our vets today are spit on by folks who think they’re scum because they volunteered to go to war? So, we want to allow pedophiles to be sheltered from the ire of the people, but our vets-the men and women who faced death and disfigurement from war-are to be left without the protection of our laws against hate crimes? People often hate and fear vets as if they were crazy people. Surely, homosexual activists can relate to that. Yet they remain dead silent in the face of vet hate and the sheltering of pedophiles under their “rights” law.

    What possible excuse do these Congressmen and women have except that they are either tremendously illinformed, stupid or just plain wicked?

    Maybe you can explain it to me. And the day I see a bunch of these activists showing up to cause trouble at an all Black Pentecostal church is the day I know the Lord is about to return because as Ray Charles said, “Their souls will belong to Jesus because their butts will belong to me.”

  • Asinus Gravis

    Trimelda, it might possibly be helpful to you to actually read HR 1913. I read it and find it radically at odds with what you write.

    Most of what you say is misinformed:
    (1) It is not focused on homosexuality.
    (2) It does not change any of the free speech protections under the Constitution.
    (3) It concerns hate that is associated with the commission of what is already recognized in law as a crime under Federal, state, or city legislation.
    (4) Pedophiles are not explicitly mentioned in the bill.
    (5) The bill does not “protect” any form of deviancy.

    Most of what you have presented are gross distortions of the bill by right-wing nut jobs drumming up money for their political activities and/or trying to give the Obama administration a black eye on any pretext.

    You are correct in one thing though. The website AtlasShrugged is “mind numbing” nonsense.

  • Jim

    Jake includes Death along with Love as part of God’s creation. He equates the two because he says they exist.

    “I do presume to celebrate His creation in all its variety and glory, without judgment–it’s the judgment of humans on God’s creation that I find so presumptuous, but I know that that presumptuousness, too, exists, and I celebrate it as well. “

    You agreed with him. He implys that God created death.

    However, the Book of Wisdom says “
    “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24). Indeed, Jesus came into the world to conquer sin and death.

    I do not believe God created the potential for death or sin. These are not creations but rather the absence of something good. It is what happens when you remove what God created. God creates Life, death is the absence of life. God creates holiness, sin is the absence or reduction in holiness. You and Jake are equating existence with absence of existence. You are equating good and evil. God has already judged sin and death as bad and we humans only preach about judgments already made by God. Death is evil. All sin is evil – including active homosexuality. It is Jake who is presumptuous in not following God’s condemnation of death and sin. Active Homosexuality is the absence of holiness and reflects a corrupted nature due to the removal of God’s protective holiness. Some repeat as aspect of original sin by defining for themselves what is good and evil.Homosexuality is sinful because God says so – not becuase Ben cannot find anything harmful.
    The Fall not only affected our souls but our bodies as well. Under God’s original holiness Man’s nature was not subject to corruption. Man’s Fall resulted in weakened spiritual faculties and a corrupted nature. Homosexuality, even if there is a biological component, is a consequence of both a corrupted nature and a weakened free will. You are trying to say God created both heterosexuality and homosexuality I see only evidence for heterosexuality, i.e. because it also creates Life.

  • jake

    Jim, thanks for your comment.

    I believe that God created everything, death included. If He didn’t create it, who did? I’m not sure how death can be evil–with all that that word implies. God is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega.

    Things can’t be blamed on the Fall, or sin. Those are part of His creation.

    We can’t have it both ways–Jesus died upon the cross. Was that evil? My reading of the Bible seems to say that is was for the good of all of us, our salvation.

    I respect the views of those who disagree with me, but the God I know created it all, for better or worse, and I celebrate that.


  • Jake

    Jake, then we have an irreconcilable difference. All sin and death in man is due to the Fall. If you reject Chirst’s death on the cross for the salvation of Man, then you reject the most basic tenant of Christianity. Scripture predicts an apostate Church.

    Scripture itself says God created everthing good. Death and sin are not creations, but the absence of good.

  • Trimelda

    And let’s go to the Word on this one:

    Revelation 20:14 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

    14And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.

    1 Corinthians 15:26
    King James Bible
    The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

    It would seem from these verses that Death is not in God’s original plan. Otherwise, why would it be called “enemy” and why would God toss it into the lake or pool of fire when the Lord restores Creation?

    We choose wickedness, God allows us to have it. But then there comes the time when He says “Enough.” And we’re done.

  • Jim

    Sorry Jake, note below should have shown as comimg from me.

    Jake, then we have an irreconcilable difference. All sin and death in man is due to the Fall. If you reject Chirst’s death on the cross for the salvation of Man, then you reject the most basic tenant of Christianity. Scripture predicts an apostate Church.

    Scripture itself says God created everthing good. Death and sin are not creations, but the absence of good.

    Posted by Jake—May 26, 2009, 10:26 am