Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Days of Lot are Upon Us!

On Wednesday, a federal judge in California struck down Proposition 8 which banned same sex marriage. The Proposition was approved by California voters in November 2008 after the California Supreme Court legalized marriage between Sodomites. The decison caused sodomites to celebrate outside of the courthouse. Vaseline was in short supply.

It is not surprising that U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker declared the law to be unconstitutional because the judge is one of three openly sodomite judges in the federal court system.

"Our courts are supposed to protect our Constitutional rights," lead plaintiff Kris Perry said as Sandy Stier, her partner of 10 years, stood at her side. "Today, they did."

Jesus Christ told us in Luke 17:26-28 that the two great sins that would come upon us in the end time would be miscegenation (race-mixing) and sodomy. (I detail this in length in my book, The Last Church. You can get this by sending a $5.00 offering to: Christian Revival Center, P.O. Box 354, Bergman, AR 72615 - ask for the book by name.)

We are about to take the final step. The first step was the acceptance of miscegenation which came out of the 60’s and the activities of Martin Luther King (Days of Noah). Now we are about to have Sodomy legalized in “gay” “marriages.” (Days of Lot!)

The decision is going to be appealed to the 9th District court where it is certain to be upheld and then to the U.S. Supreme court. The U.S. Supreme court is almost certain to support Judge Vaugh Walkers ruling. Here is how the Supreme Court is likely to rule. The Jewish lesbian Elena Kagan who is certain to become the next Supreme Court justice along with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor are likely to support sodomite “marriages.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito will most certainly vote against the ruling of the California homosexual judge. That will give the swing vote to Anthony M. Kennedy who has in the past favored homosexual issues demanding “equality.”

That means when this comes out of the Supreme Court there will be a 5 to 4 decision striking down any laws, nation wide which prohibits gay “marriages.”

When that happens America will become Queer Nation.

As with the issue of miscegenation, within one generation most churches, fearful of losing tax exemption, will fully embrace homosexuality as they have race-mixing.

We have become a dictatorship of the courts. The people no longer rule their own nation.


Anonymous said...

Our people must repent
II Chron. 7:14

Nordic2005 said...

Appalling and tragic.

You would not believe how many church people have said to me, "AS A CHRISTIAN, I cannot oppose miscegenation." They have told me that opposing miscegenation and "racial equality" is "not the Christian point of view."

Will these "Christians" soon say the same thing about these "marriages"?

(Why would queers want to "marry," anyway?)

Anonymous said...

Was the comment of "Vaseline was in short supply" really needed? Why can't you simply express your opinion without the foolish remark? Because they are homosexuals they must just be having sex all day long because they can't possibly be people who have jobs, lives, etc like heterosexuals.

You preach "Equality for all, special privileges for none." Are homosexuals included in the "all?" If you say "all" then you should mean "all."

Whether you believe in their lifestyle or not, they want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals want to marry.

NorwegianHeat said...

I also find your "dictatorship of the courts" theory interesting. It surprises me that you chose to use such a trivial example to try and make make your point. It doesn't seem to me that the ruling will have any effect on how you, your family, or followers go about your daily lives, nor do I believe that it somehow violates the sanctity of our systems of government. It merely recognizes the rights of a particular demographic to live their own lives the way they wish to--the same rights I'm sure you wish for you and your family. Just because you disagree with the lifestyle and the ruling concerning it does not mean that "the people no longer rule their own nation." Your perspective is not the governing perspective of America, nor the majority perspective of its people. The decision does not undermine the ability of the people to rule themselves, it merely awards an equal footing for all Americans--or at least aims to take steps in that direction. With your concern for the power of the people, however, I would think the supreme court decision that eliminated any spending limits on corporate campaign contributions would be of slightly higher importance, with all its implications of further skewing our already-crooked political process. I don't recall a Pastor Robb commentary on that though...
I don't believe allowing same-sex marriage will have any detrimental effects the lives of traditionally-minded Americans. I hope that it will mean more families will live in comfort and contentment. I think it's selfish to want to keep that from certain individuals based only on resentment for their sexual preferences. I think America would be better served if people refrained from judging and controlling the lives of others--especially with that really aren't of anyone else's concern. You can cling to your simplistic stance, but it will be the subsistence of mass ignorance (much like what you're promoting) that will continue to hold us back as one people--the human "corporate entity".

NorwegianHeat said...


"Why would queers want to 'marry,' anyway?"

Well, I'm no expert, so this could be way off base, but I would think that, as human beings, their motivation would be the same as anyone else's--to legally recognize a loving union, to try to strengthen, secure, or ensure one, or maybe just to utilize tax benefits. Why do heterosexuals do it?

Anonymous said...

Hooray for Norwegian! You sure put Robb in his place. Sexual activity should not be controlled by the government. Age restrictions are also archaic and arbitrary. There should be no age restrictions. Children begin desiring sex at about 10 years old and should not be denied them because some religious nut like Robb thinks it against the Bible. It will only be a matter of time and sex age limits are lowered, Thank you Norwegian for putting that puff-bag Robb in his place.

NCKnight said...

@Anonymous - August 11, 2010 8:48 PM: Are you implying by that crap you just posted that you want to have sex with children? If you are then you are SICK SICK SICK. As for NorwegianHeat, I'm sure Pastor Robb pays no more attention to him than he would to an ass braying!

Anonymous said...

I agree that the comment about Vaseline was out of line. Nowadays, most sodomites use K-Y Jelly.

NorwegianHeat said...

Well anon, that's an interesting opinion, though not one I'd endorse personally. I still believe that age restrictions benefit society because they help to prepare young people to enter society and engage in productive lives as they mature to adulthood. Children do still need to be raised--that's part of creating an educated, responsible society. A responsible parent should be able to educate their ten year old child on the importance of responsibility, and hopeful guide them away from bad decisions.
I don't think your example really parallels the subject in question in that sexual orientation is genetically determined, whereas an individual's participation in sexual activity is a choice. While a person might be able to choose their sexual preferences, they do have the ability to exercise responsible decision making. Further, I see a big difference in the societal impact of a grown, responsible homosexual's sexual behavior versus that of an irresponsible, immature minor's.

NCKnight: Although I enjoyed your literal interpretation, I felt Anon's suggestion was more in the vein of sarcasm--I assume to attempt to highlight some perceived flaw in my way of thinking, though I will admit I've yet to pinpoint the error.
As to your other point, I agree--though ignorance is not a trait I'd celebrate, nor look for in leadership.

"I agree that the comment about Vaseline was out of line. Nowadays, most sodomites use K-Y Jelly."

Ah, yes Thomas, I see now. The message of love is STRONG in this one.

Anonymous said...

If we're entering the days of Lot, does that mean we'll be forced to have incestuous relations with are daughters? Just asking.

Thomas Robb said...

Anonymous at 1:48

I guess it could mean that also. There is a lot of perversion these days.

Nordic2005 said...

"Why do heterosexuals do it?"
NH, the elementary school dictionary will answer that:

marriage n. The legal relationship into which a man and a woman enter with the purpose of making a home and raising a family. COPYRIGHT 1956 by G.&C. MERRIAM CO

This definition from Webster's agrees with the Bible (Genesis 2:24)

Homosexuals and lesbians want to change the time-honored, traditional definition of marriage so that they can replace God as the Law-giver. (For an unbeliever, that will not be understandable.)

Anonymous said...

OK that's just gross.

Anonymous said...

"I see a big difference in the societal impact of a grown, responsible homosexual's sexual behavior versus that of an irresponsible, immature minor's."
Really? Did you not know that children emulate adults? Moreover, (as a good liberal you should already know this) a few 12-year-olds have more mature personalities than do a few 35-year-olds.

Same-sex "marriage" will definitely impact children (i.e., how they understand the world), just as Hugh Hefner's porn already has for decades.

Here is where you're taking us, Norwegian:
Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire

NorwegianHeat said...

Thanks Nordic—I wasn’t literally asking so much as making a point, but I appreciate your follow-up. I was trying to illustrate that homosexuals have the same motivation for marriage as heterosexuals. Just take the definition you provided and replace “man and a woman” with man/man or woman/woman, and there you have it.

“Homosexuals and lesbians want to change the time-honored, traditional definition of marriage so that they can replace God as the Law-giver.”

First, I think this is a ridiculous conclusion. Homosexuals, as I stated before, have the same aspirations for legal union as anyone else—no malicious intent included. Would it be fair for me to assume that you want to keep homosexuals from marrying out of hatred for them—out of some dark craving to inflict misery upon their lives? I don’t think that is your intent. I think your desire to maintain tradition is as self-centered as a homosexual’s desire to change it.
Second, unbelievers don’t feel that the Christian god is or should be our law-giver. The Christian god does not need to be replaced, because he/it does not and should not have power over us (as unbelievers). You have every right to allow whatever deity you wish to direct your life according to whatever principles you choose to embrace, but these are your principles—they cannot be forced on others against their will.

NorwegianHeat said...

“Did you not know that children emulate adults?”

Yes, I’m fairly aware of this phenomenon—though I don’t really see your point. After all, a child can emulate poor heterosexual behavior just as easily as homosexual behavior. In my opinion, children should not participate in sexual behavior period. This goes back to raising your child and teaching them responsibility—regardless of their sexual orientation. If a child is engaging in homosexual activity, then this is a failure in parenting just as much as if that same child were participating in traditional, “acceptable” sexual activity. If I have kids, I don’t want them engaging in any “adult” behavior until they have the physical, mental, and financial responsibility of an adult. Their sexual orientation, however, is beyond my ability to control, and I’m comfortable with that.
As long as we’re on the topic, how much more harmful is a minor’s emulation of homosexual behavior than that of heterosexual behavior? It would seem that the risk of underage pregnancy would be enough to make heterosexually active children the more dangerous scenario.

Nordic2005 said...

". . .out of some dark craving to inflict misery upon their lives?"
Norwegian, I don't desire to inflict misery on ANYONE. There is already enough evil in the world.

Rather, I want to prevent homosexual activists from recruiting young people into a very unhealthy and dangerous "lifestyle." I want to discourage the young from this activity and thereby prevent misery.

There is no "gay" gene.


It is the 'Gay' Agenda which is selfish, as these radicals want to erase the line between public and private life. The modern world is ridiculously obsessed with sexuality. Sexuality is, in its very nature, a private part of human life. Keeping it private is the only way to safeguard healthy national sexual mores.

Anonymous said...

Listen Norwegian: I am not trying tp be snobbish with you. But this country was founded as a Christian nation.
You are living in what was an expression of our Christian faith. You live here at the benevolence of a Christian people. I am sorry if you do not like it. Why don't you move to a great atheist nation. Oh, I forgot, there aren't any. I really don't know why Pastor Robb puts up with your dribble

NorwegianHeat said...


If you read my post again, you will hopefully notice that I specifically stated that I do not feel it is your intent to inflict misery on others. I only asked if it would be fair to make this assumption. I was attempting to make the point that homosexuals, in their own pursuit of happiness, are not trying to undermine your values, just as your rejection of their values is not an attempt to undermine their happiness.

“Rather, I want to prevent homosexual activists from recruiting young people into a very unhealthy and dangerous ‘lifestyle.’ I want to discourage the young from this activity and thereby prevent misery.”

If a young person feels homosexual--or wants to be homosexual if that's how you see it--but is afraid to acknowledge it out of fear of public opinion, how does this prevent misery? Do you believe homosexuals will feel more fulfilled in life if they are kept in the closet, or pressured into living by someone else’s standards? Wouldn’t you being doing more to prevent misery by simply staying out of other peoples’ sex-lives, which even you admit are meant to be private?

NorwegianHeat said...

“Moreover, a few 12-year-olds have more mature personalities than do a few 35-year-olds.”

I totally agree, but again—what are you trying to get at here? Those mature 12-year-olds are probably aware that sex (of whatever variety) is not only inappropriate for them at their level of physical development, but also inappropriate in that they are without the ability to deal with the potential consequences of such behavior, and would thus choose to abstain from such activity until they are truly ready for it. The ability to use reason and appropriate decision-making is, after all, what makes them mature, isn’t it? On the other hand, yes, there are immature adults—probably more than a few. Look at Nadya Suleman—the “Octo-Mom”. Clearly not financially secure enough for such a responsibility, she went ahead and had way too many kids anyway—it’s up to fourteen now, I believe--some with developmental issues on top of that. Will she be able to instill any better sense of responsibility/accountability in those children than her own? Can this failure be blamed on homosexuality?

Anonymous said...

To all those who keep battling with Norwegian Heat. You are wasting your time. He has no morals, no values and no absolutes. He is like a leaf blowing in the wind. He does not believe in God therefore he has no standard of right or wrong. As far as NorwegianHeat is concerned, because there is no lawgiver, right and wrong are determined by each man. Therefore man becomes the chief lawgiver. He is foolish and it is foolish to argue with a fool. In his mind there is no law giver. There is no stability in his life.
It is evident that the only happiness he finds in life is to be some kind of internet warrior.
One poster said that he should move to a great atheist country, only there isn't any. He lives in a country that has freedom of speech made available by the sacrifice of Christian people. Then he wants to take that liberty to trash the God that made it possible.
I am making this plea to Pastor Robb, please don't give this fool a soapbox to spout his ignorance. (Although he pretends to we wise.) If he wants to spout off this nonsense, let him start his own blog or website.
Please Pastor Robb, you have been more than generous with his comments. Your patience is commendable. But I think it is time to stop. Nothing of value comes from anything he says.

Nordic2005 said...


You are raising issues that are only superficially, at best, related to the topic of same-sex "marriage."

The topic here is what the impact of "gay" marriage will be on society at large. The answer is that it will destroy the Institution of Marriage -- its true meaning -- and what is left of traditional Christian sexual morals in this country.

For me to address the secondary points you make would require me to join you in off-topic discussion.

I will end my contribution here by stating what Prof. Kevin MacDonald has said about homosexuals, namely, that they also have ethnic (i.e., racial) interests and should not betray their heritage in advancing the liberal, race-denying agenda.

NorwegianHeat said...

"If he wants to spout off this nonsense, let him start his own blog or website."

I've considered this as well, but I don't think it would be very constructive. Would you visit it? I would rather expose my thoughts to those not already in agreement with me. There is little chance of personal development if I only pandered to those with the same ideas--I would not encounter as many new or opposing views this way. I'm not looking for a soapbox to preach from or to receive praise from like-minded individuals--this seems stale and uninspiring. Rather, I aim to educate myself by exploring outside the bounds of my comfort zone, and challenge myself through exposure to criticism. If Mr. Robb wishes to ban me, that's up to him. It might strengthen your sense of sense of security, or his sense of control, but little else. Silencing critics certainly won't validate any of the native beliefs.

"Nothing of value comes from anything he says."

Value lies in the eye of the beholder. Whether or not you find value in what I say is a condition of your perspective.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian: You just don't get it. Its not that people cannot defend their position. It is just that there is no common ground between us. Trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with a 2 year old.
I again urge people not to respond to your arguments. You possess no absolutes of right or wrong. Unfortunately I guess I violated my own suggestion by responding to you.
I know you consider yourself intellectual, but to the rest of us you appear foolish and childish.
I repeat my statement. There is no common ground. You have no "yard stick" to measure right and wrong except how YOU interpret it.
You say our position on sodomites etc is wrong. How do you know its wrong? Because YOU say so! Who made you the judge? I say it is wrong and base it on nature and thousands of years of tradition. You say sodomy is good and you base this judgement upon your own elitist self importance. Why should I or any person listen to you. You have no standard. You are like a leaf blowing in the wind. It has no power to direct its course. When connected to its life source it had nourishment and purpose. Now it is good for nothing but to be blown about and landing in a heap.
As I said, I advise others to not respond to you. They respond because they care about you and wish to give you direction, but you scoff at their words.

Proverbs 18:2 “Fools do not want to understand anything. They only want to tell others what they think.”

Norwegian Heat said...

Thanks for the comment Anon--I appreciated the articulation of your ideas and perspective. You are clearly an intelligent individual and a critical thinker.

You may be interested to know that I have decided to pursue your suggestion of starting my own blog. While I am uncertain as to whether I will commit to the rigorous upkeep that Pastor Robb maintains, I felt it would be a good place to handle overflow discussions--as Nordic2005 pointed out, we tend to get off-topic. I'll spare Robb by saving my formal response to your last comment for my own blog. I invite you to read it if it interests you. If anyone else has questions, comments, or criticism, they're welcom as well. My blog is:

Anonymous said...

As I read the comments on this blog it always amazes me that if the comments are supportive to the Klan's point of view then the responses are always in the positive. But if someone like Norweigan or myself states a different point of view we are viewed as "foolish dribble."

I know the Christian faith believes that homosexuals can switch their sexual preferences if they just would find a spouce of the opposite sex and live a "normal" life. So I ask, what if someone asked you to switch to the homosexual lifestyle. Do you think you could? I don't beileve you could so why do you think it's so easy for a homosexual to do it?

Anonymous said...

"Here is where you're taking us, Norwegian:
Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire"

I totally agree on the list The Major Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire presented on this site. Especially on key point 13.
"One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was Christianity."
But I guess concerning the current topic you sure ment point 6 "Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics". Damn those homosexualls allways teaching american military tacticts to germanic tribes.