This prayer is from Jesus that we may here from Him, that He may meet our needs. It only consist of three simple steps.

1) We need to read one scripture. This will focus us in the word that brings everlasting life.

2) Since this prayer is from Jesus we need yo direct our prayer to Him personally. Too often Christian focus they’re prayer’s to G_D the father. Scripture proclaims that Jesus should be the focus of our prayer.

3) The simplest part of this Prayer is to ask Jesus one question. Please, all that is required for this question is to make it simple. Let Jesus Himself finish the question when He gives you that understanding through prayer.

The PRAYER

The scripture that is the focus of this prayer is “ACTS 2:38″. It’s not necessary to do any study into this scripture. Jesus Himself willl bestow the understanding that will resonate in your heart.

The most important part of this prayer is that we need to direct our prayer directly to Jesus. If you normally would say Father in your prayer, change your focus from the Father to Christ Jesus by lifting Jesus name up every time you would normally use Father in your prayer.

Maybe the hardest part of this prayer is the question that we need to ask Jesus. For man as we are, always try to understand the question and may add many additional quires. The simplest question is all that is required.

Simply ask Jesus ‘WHY’

The Civil Rights example (or Douthat’s illustration that you appropriate) is not a good one.

It’s true that our nation generally has a strong sensitivity against even subtle racism and that this moral code exists in popular culture. However, it is not true that it has been affected by law significantly. The last 50 years have seen lots of activism, politics, and social movements, but their most significant incarnations are on the cultural level — film, literature, activism, education (which is usually not initiated by law) — NOT on the legal level. It may be true that some equal opportunity law has had an effect on culture, but just not nearly as much as equal opportunity rhetoric and popular movements have.

All that to say: using law to affect social morality is and should be a hard case to make. And there needs to be a stronger case for the prevalence of law-to-culture influence in order to justify it.

Americans are both extremely naïve about sex and extremely selfish about marriage. But marriage evolved to structure the specific ways in which sex between a man and woman can be really devastating to society, or really fruitful. In order for men and women to have sex with one another, to avoid causing a lot of disruption and wrong action in society, they have to do a lot of difficult things. The fact that a lot of them don’t want to do those things now and don’t even see those things as related to marriage is part of the problem, not an excuse to further move away from the idea of marriage as the structure…. So if humans were perfectly able to control their reproduction, could pick when they had kids and with whom, and men and women are interchangeable both socially and biologically, then you don’t have marriage. Why would you? It arises to manage not only procreation, but also the social and biological differences between men and women prior to reproduction.

That last point is essential and unfortunately not raised enough in these discussions. Marriage is founded upon the goodness and delightful wonder of sexual differences lived out over a lifetime, before, during and after marriage, and even apart from marriage. Sexual difference creates the possibility of a dance which in the most intense stages can bring forth life. But the prior reality is that of sexual difference, and to the extent that modern people are ashamed of or deny that difference due to real and perceived abuse, gay marriage becomes plausible.