Virginia 8th CD Independent Candidate Wonders “is the Lord against porn;” Compares Self to Martin Luther and Galileo

    548
    0
    SHARE

    Nope, you can’t make this stuff up — but Mike Webb for Congress (I? R?) can. LOL

    ENTER THE MAELSTROM BETWEEN SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS
    I have often, in the course of this campaign, stated that leadership requires us to move outside the zone of comfort sometimes, but also to dare to stand a little higher on our tippy toes of right and principle. So, today, my very favorite question was “Mike, is the Lord against porn?” And, as a conservative with a strong faith tradition of Baptist, not Scientology as is now believed by at least one person new to the campaign, this was my reply:

    That is a very good question for a preacher, but I am a preacher man’s son, and for many years a prodigal son, at that. So, who do you call the Lord?

    Proverbs 6:25 in the Old Testament gives us the words of the God of Abraham: “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.” Likewise, in Exodus 22:16, we are informed,”And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.” In these verses, I construe an intent of the scriptures for the sexual union of a man and woman to be blessed in marriage. And, I am not a betting man, but I would bet a lot of money and the reward of salvation on the proposition that pornography is not sanctioned under the law of the God of Abraham. But, we are not a theocracy.

    While Matthew 5:28 provides us with some instruction from the Lord Jesus Christ: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And, In 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, we are told, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Again, I see a consistent message with the Old Testament here in contemplating a holy union between a man and a woman as a prerequisite for carnal relations. But, again, we are not a theocracy.

    If science and empiricism is “the Lord thy God,” from a sociological perspective does not it make sense for rational persons, the assumption under which we all conduct ourselves in the eyes of the law, to engage in activities that result in reproduction to be conducted in a union best suited to address that consequence? And entreating Kant’s categorical imperative wherein others would act as i act myself, or at least make every effort to do so, would this not also discourage those not of the age of majority from disrupting their lives, educations, and careers with pregnancies for which they are unable to provide. The trip to the craggy rock, even for the bold Odysseus, began with the Siren’s song. So, again, as a preacher’s son, my best guess is that that Lord would prefer that we abstain, but we are a country that champions the freedom of the individual to exercise his or her choice.

    And, as an aspirant to public office, my “Lord” has to be that rule of law, even if, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”