The Reason Files
  • Home
  • About
  • The Gospel
    • The Gospel Blog
  • Blog
    • Christian Persecution in America
  • Encyclopedia
  • Extras!
    • Free Downloads
    • Meme Gallery >
      • Meme Gallery Page 2
      • Meme Gallery Page 3
    • Links

Seattle Mayor is Openly Anti-Christian

5/28/2025

0 Comments

 
Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell is not only openly Anti-Christian, but is also openly calling for Christians to be discriminated against, and even directing the city of Seattle to engage in it.
Recently, a Christian worship band, “Mayday USA,” officially requested and received a permit from the city of Seattle to perform down the street from Seattle’s city hall in the infamous Cal Anderson Park (location of the BLM & Antifa CHAZ/CHOP zone was located). Dozens of Christians, including Christian families with small children, were in attendance to worship Jesus and protest Harrell’s dismal performance as the city’s leader.
In response, and equal number (if not more) Antifa and Trantifa activists arrived and began a violent counter protest, verbally attacking the Christians, screaming at them, cursing at them, threatening them; and even closely surrounding at least one family with three small children (which included an infant), hemming them in and refusing to allow them to leave, while flailing their arms and fists and screaming obscenities at both the adults and the children. Police had to step in and rescue the family. At least 23 of the Antifa and Trantifa thugs were arrested.
After the protests settled down and the Christians had left the park, Mayor Harrell released a statement regarding the incident.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Harrell begins his statement by celebrating homosexuality, and stating that Seattle is welcoming of homosexuality. He then attacks the Christians by calling them “far-right,” and claiming the purpose for the band and the Christians who joined them was to “provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ Neighborhood.” Never mind that the stated purpose of the concert was to protest Harrell’s failures as the city’s mayor. Never mind that the concert was in the park down the street from his office at city hall, and all they did was sing worship songs and dance. Hardly a “far-right” violent protest. The violence only started when Harrell’s supporters showed up. Their actions brought to light a clear demonstration of the violence of the Marxist left.
Harrell then blames the violence not only on the Christians, but on a mysterious unknown and unnamed group of “anarchists” who he claims “infiltrated” the Antifa/Trantifa group.
Then, after giving his obligatory nod to the First Amendment, Harrell states he is “directing the Parks Department to review all the circumstances” regarding the application approval and whether or not the Christians could have been shuffled away to some other location further away from his office. In other words, there are some public access areas that Christians are simply not allowed in.
He also states that the arrests of the Antifa/Trantifa thugs and any citations given will be reviewed. This is probably code for they will all get off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Harrell finishes off with one last slam on the Christians, calling them “an extreme right-wing national effort to attack” homosexual communities; while puffing out his chest in celebration of homosexuality welcoming Seattle.
Seattle has fallen. How much longer will America last.
0 Comments

Letter from Phlegmore to Slugwart

2/16/2023

0 Comments

 
Picture
A letter from Divisional Leader Phlegmore to Slugwart, a demon under his supervision (with apologies to C.S. Lewis).

Greetings Slugwart!

I wanted to encourage you to continue in your earnest endeavor to turn humans away from following the King, the Lord Jesus Christ. In order to accomplish this goal, there are three forms of attack that can be used.
The first of these is the direct attack on on God. This is something you seem to be quite proficient at. Whether it is an attack on the existence of God (providing what appear at first glance to be rational and logical arguments for His non-existence); or, an attack on the attributes and character of God. One of my favorite tactics is the over emphasis on God’s attribute of love. I am especially impressed with your use of the “God is love” attack, getting people to focus only on the love of God to the exclusion of His other attributes; and, causing them to view God as some sort of benign grandfatherly type who winks and chuckles at their sin, and automatically forgiving them with a “children will be children” attitude. They have no idea how blasphemous they are being and I love it!
The second of these is an attack on the teachings of God. I personally saw our master use this in the Garden of Eden when he approached Eve and said to her, “Hath God really said?” thus causing her to doubt that God had commanded them to not eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Of course humans have become a bit more discerning since then, and now require a more subtle approach, one that eases into the deception, taking a longer period of time to acclimate the humans to a false teaching. Often this requires the use of intellectuals who do not have a firm biblical foundation beneath them. Apostate “Christian” denominations such as the Anglican church, the Roman Catholic church, United Methodist church (UMC), Episcopal church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and others all have such easily manipulated “biblical scholars” (LOL!). Therefore, the introduction of unbiblical doctrines such as Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, LGBTQ+ Theory (or Queer Theory), etc.; and the twisting of biblical doctrines such as women forbidden to be in positions of authority over men, the stern prohibition against any form of homosexuality, divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality, etc., is easily advanced.
A quick note, one method you might try is having a progressive liberal pseudo-Christian group present themselves as conservative or reformed. This is a good way to throw off the true Christians, and especially those who are biblically illiterate. I absolutely love lazy pastors who try to be seeker sensitive and culturally relevant. They are so easily manipulated!
The third of these is an attack on godly pastors, preachers, and teachers. If they will frustratingly insist on soundly teaching the whole of God’s Holy Word – all 66 books, and doing so exegetically, expositionally, then this is the only attack that can work. It won’t stop them from being biblically accurate, but it will cause others, especially those immature in their faith, and biblically illiterate, to run away from them. To view them as “heretics” and “wolves” (even though they aren’t), and otherwise disparage them. I have personally found this to be a very satisfying pastime, and I am sure you will as well. This works on the well known and also the not so well known pastors, preachers, and teachers. One of the best outlets for this type of attack is the internet. Make use of social media. Find an easily manipulated internet personality such as a YouTube influencer or a blogger and use them to attack your target. Better yet, find an internet discernment ministry and use them. No not a real discernment ministry, but one of those “heresy hunters” that are eager to find heresy among the more well known pastors, preachers, and teachers so they can take then down a peg or two, yet have no real understanding of the Scripture, or even of Christianity itself. Quite often you will find they have been manipulated in the past and so are more susceptible to it now.
That’s all for now Slugwart, just be encouraged that we are all in this together, and we have no intention of stopping our attacks on the Triune God, on His Bible, and on His followers.
Your Divisional Leader,
Phlegmore






0 Comments

What does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

11/13/2022

0 Comments

 
Homosexuality is Condemned by God in the Bible!
I'm sure you've heard this from so-called "fundamentalists" for quite some time. But is it true? Let's take a look at Scripture and see what it really says about homosexuality.The normal expression of sexuality is between a biological male and a biological female. This is shown in Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; and Ephesians 5:31. Any other expression of sexuality than that between a biological male and a biological female is an abnormal perversion. The Bible states that all sex outside of the normal standard is considered sexual immorality, and it is a sin that finds its roots in the sinfulness of man’s heart (Mark 7:1). The command given by God to Adam and Eve, and which extends to all biological men and biological women who are married according to the normal expression of marriage, is to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). It goes without saying that homosexuals cannot obey this command and procreate.
The Bible speaks very loudly and very clearly against the sin of homosexuality. In Genesis 19:1-29, we read that God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is clear that this was due to the rebellion of the inhabitants against God, as seen in their demand to have homosexual relations with men sin of homosexuality (see v.5 & v.13). Elsewhere, in Leviticus we see the following:
“22 And you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
“13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 LSB)
“24 There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh dispossessed before the sons of Israel.” (1 Kings 14:24 LSB)
A point of contention brought up by the pro-homosexuality crowd is that we are calling for their death. They often follow this with something along the lines of “death, simply for loving someone.” Arguments such as this demonstrate their ignorance of the Bible. While God still views the sin of homosexuality as an abomination (His morals have not changed, nor will they ever), the penal aspect of this falls under the Levitical Civil Law, which applied only to the Israelites. Since the first century the Moral Law serves as an objective moral compass for mankind. The Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Jesus, who was the final sacrifice for sin for all who believe in Him, and the Civil Law will be fulfilled in all those who reject Jesus and the salvation found only in Him, when they are cast into hell for all eternity.
Another common argument by the pro-homosexuality crowd is that Christians are being contradictory, picking and choosing or “cherry picking” (as based on their re-defining of the term), by wearing clothes made with a mixture of wool and linen, planting different seeds together, or eating lobster, crab, shrimp, and pork (Leviticus 11:9-12; 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11). These arguments stem from their ignorance of Old Testament Jewish Law. The Old Testament laws condemning homosexuality as an abomination are part of God’s Moral Law, and are still in effect for all people everywhere. The Old Testament Laws condemning the wearing of wool and linen mixed fabric, the planting of different seeds together, and the eating of certain foods are all part of God’s Ceremonial Law which was established to keep men and women in a right standing with God (remaining ceremonially clean, etc); and were applicable only to the Jews, and only until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law as the final propitiatory sacrifice for sin. While there were often Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial aspects to the various Old Testament Laws; God is unchanging*, and therefore His morality has never and will never change. It is part and parcel of who and what He is, inextricably tied to His attribute of absolute purity and goodness.

[*The Immutability (Unchangableness) of God: Numbers 23:19; Psalm 33:11; 102:27; Isaiah 40:8; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17]

The condemnation of homosexuality is not confined to the Old Testament. It also appears in the New Testament. In addition to those verses noted above where Jesus stated the normal expression of sexuality, we read in the Letter to the Romans, chapter 1, verses 18-32, God’s condemnation of those who engage in all manner of unrighteousness. Included in that list of unrighteous acts is homosexuality. In verses 26-27 we read: “26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions; for their females exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males abandoned the natural function of the female and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (LSB)
Because these people openly reject God, and openly rebel against Him, God has given them what they want by giving them over to depravity. By specifically naming female homosexuality (verse 26) and male homosexuality (verse 27), God makes it clear that there are no exceptions. All homosexuality is considered “unnatural” and “indecent.” God goes even further by stating homosexuals receive in themselves the “due penalty” for their unnatural and indecent acts. The “due penalty” includes the numerous sexually transmitted diseases, broken lives, broken minds, and ultimately cast into hell for all eternity.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 we read, “9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” Again, God is very specific, naming both effeminate and homosexuals. The word effeminate is translated from the Greek word malacoi, which means catamites, males who are effeminate and submit their bodies to homosexual practices. The word homosexual is translated from the Greek word arsenokoitai, which refers to a sodomite, or a pederast. Biological males engaging in homosexual activity with other biological males, including biological male teenagers.
And finally, in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 we read, “9...law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and godless, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” Here we see that homosexuals are equal to murderers, the sexually immoral, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whomever else is engaging in sinful actions. God clearly states here that homosexuals are lawless, rebellious, ungodly, unholy, godless sinners. There is no mistaking the clear and literal words of Scripture in these passages. They simply say what they say, and the only way to make them say something else is to mistranslate, misapply, and otherwise twist them. But taken literally, with the clear and explicit meaning of the words – which is the natural and normal way to read these passages, then we easily and quickly understand them.
Fortunately, homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin. This is shown in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” In this verse, after condemning a slew of sins, including homosexuality, God goes on to say that some of the people He has been writing to were lost in these various sins; but, they were washed, sanctified, and justified in and through Jesus Christ our Lord and in the Holy Spirit who seals us for the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13).
Often homosexuals and their supporters will claim that “Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality.” All Christians know that Jesus is God, He is Yahweh Almighty (as is the Father and the Holy Spirit). Since all 66 books of the Bible were breathed out by God, every passage noted herein was breathed out by Jesus Christ. So yes, Jesus said quite a bit about and against homosexuality.

0 Comments

A Theological Popeye Point

3/6/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
A Theological Popeye Point

by R.P. Tuttle

One of my favorite cartoon characters growing up was Popeye. I think I watched every Popeye cartoon ever made. One thing common to all the Popeye cartoons was the moment when the heroic sailor had suffered enough abuse – usually at the hand of his arch enemy Bluto, and he grabs a can of spinach, downs it, and suddenly he wallops the bad guy. When Popeye reaches that point where he can no longer tolerate Bluto's bullying, he utters one of his most recognizable phrases, “That's all I can stands, an' I can't stands n'more!”
We have all find ourselves in similar circumstances at one point or another in our lives, when our patience or tolerance has reached a breaking point. When we reach that point, and something inside us changes and we step up to the plate and confront whatever it is that has pushed us too far. That point, the moment when a person changes and there is no stopping what is about to happen, is known by psychologists as the “Popeye Point.” Yes, it is a real thing. I'm sure if you give it some thought, you will be able to identify a few of Popeye Points from your own life.
Since becoming a Christian, my own Popeye Points have become more infrequent; but to be sure, they do occasionally happen. Today I had a Popeye Point. It came when I was reading my email, and I came across one that contained an article by Dr. Albert Mohler. I like Dr. Mohler, I really do, but today I think he disengaged the analytical part of his brain, and turned on the politically correct part. The part that causes people to say things that are just plain stupid. Sorry Dr. Mohler, but it is what it is.

Dr. Mohler's article is titled, “Church History Made Before Our Eyes: United Methodists Make History, Affirm Biblical Standards of Sexuality.”  As soon as I read it, I groaned and executed a flawless 3-point face palm (turn, elbow to desk, face to palm). When I had recovered enough, I began reading the article. I wish I hadn't.

Dr. Mohler writes, “In St. Louis Missouri, the United Methodist Church met for a special General Conference to answer unavoidable questions central to the sexual revolution and the LGBTQ agenda. The United Methodist Church stands as the last mainline Protestant denomination that has not yet fully surrendered to the sexual revolution. The church has long agonized over this issue, with many in the church advocating for capitulation while a slim conservative majority still held to an orthodox teaching of marriage and sexuality.” He goes on to comment, saying United Methodist homosexuals “demand the ordination of openly gay clergy, the affirmation of same-sex marriage, and even electing homosexual bishops. But the liberals within the United Methodist Church have been thwarted in this effort – and the reason is illuminating.”
Dr. Mohler's words are, at best, a dishonest reporting of what actually occurred at the UMC General Conference. At worst they are total fiction, a departure from the truth, imaginative musings – I am doing my best to be generous and respectful here. I assume you get the point.
That the UMC General Conference was to answer questions regarding the homosexual agenda, is true. That the UMC is the last mainline Protestant denomination that has not fully surrendered to the sexual revolution, is not true. Unless, of course, one defines “mainline Protestant denomination” as UMC exclusively; but even then the statement is misleading since the UMC actually embraces sexual sin, and has for quite some time. “A slim conservative majority still held to an orthodox teaching of marriage and sexuality” – since when? Where did this “slim conservative majority” come from? And if it is “slim” is not a minority rather than a majority? But I digress.
United Methodist homosexuals “demand the ordination of openly gay clergy, the affirmation of same-sex marriage, and even electing homosexual bishops”! Sigh. Rest easy folks, the liberals have been thwarted in this effort according to Dr. Mohler. Double sigh. The demands of the homosexuals are nothing more than a desire to be in the spotlight, a means to satisfy their narcissistic desires. At the end of the day there is no need for them to “demand” these things, because they already have them. Already. As in right now. As in from before the General Conference, to during the General Conference, and including after the General Conference. They were not “thwarted in their effort,” not by a long shot.
Look at the facts folks, the United Methodist church currently has over 150 openly non-celibate homosexual clergy, as well as hundreds more that are either in the closet, or are supportive of the openly non-celibate homosexual clergy. It's been that way for years. It may be true the “slim conservative majority” (I'm still chuckling about that) has “banned” openly non-celibate homosexual clergy, but at the same time this is the same group of “conservatives” who have maintained the ban for decades on paper, but in practice their refusal to abide by that ban constitutes an acceptance of the openly non-celibate homosexual clergy that the conservatives keep ordaining! Most recently the “slim conservative majority” ordained its first non-binary transgendered person.
But the conservatives have managed to maintain the ban on same-sex marriage, right? Affirming that marriage is between a man and woman only, right? Well, yes, but again only on paper. There have been several homosexual marriages conducted in United Methodist church sanctuaries and by United Methodist clergy – both homosexual and straight. Again, the refusal of these “conservatives” to punish and or excommunicate those who perform these marriage profanations is a tacit approval by those same “conservatives.” And what about the election of homosexual bishops? Oh, you mean like UMC Bishop Karen Oliveto? The openly homosexual United Methodist bishop who rule over the Mountain Sky Conference which encompasses 400 churches in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah and Idaho? The one “married” to an openly homosexual woman who is also an ordained deaconess in the UMC? Do you mean that United Methodist Bishop? Yeah. That one.
It seems the United Methodist homosexuals are demanding to have that which the United Methodist church – the United Methodist church conservatives – already gave them years ago. But wait, don't go away yet, because there is more that needs to be said here about the United Methodist Church, the “last mainline Protestant denomination” to not surrender to the sexual revolution. Yeah, well, as we can see, they fully surrendered. But the sexual revolution is not the only thing the UMC has surrendered on. It has also surrendered to paganism.
Beginning in 1994, the United Methodist Church has been involved in occult practices; both explicitly and implicitly. It was in 1994 that the first “Reimagining” conference took place, hosted by the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church, USA. During this multi-day conference, participants “reimagined” the Church, Jesus Christ, and God Almighty. “Reimagined” in that they rejected the traditional, biblical views of all three. As a result, the participants embraced a new god, a goddess in fact, named Sophia. Throughout the conference chants and prayers and blessings could be heard being made to Sophia. On Sunday morning, in the church sanctuary, Sophia worshipers participated in a paganized version of Communion where they shared milk and honey rather than bread and wine, while a pornographic painting of a partially nude woman sat displayed nearby. One conference speaker, Delores Williams, taught, “I don't think we need a theory of atonement [in Christianity] at all. I think Jesus came for life and (to show us) how to live together, what life was all about."
Perhaps the greatest blasphemy to take place was the “Croning Ritual” – a witchcraft ritual, performed in the church sanctuary by United Methodist clergy. You would think with all of this worship of false gods, paganism, heresy, and blasphemy the United Methodist Church denomination might have something to say about all of this. Well, no. Not really. According to the UMC denomination headquarters they have nothing to say about the Reimagining conference, and no prohibition against witchcraft rituals in the church sanctuaries. The UMC denomination also noted that no United Methodist clergy or other participants were disciplined for engaging in these demonic practices. Not one. The “slim conservative majority” closed their eyes and gave them all a pass, thus giving their tacit approval of the whole sordid mess.
That was in 1994. The Reimagining conferences continued for another decade; the practices and teaching that take place in them continues to this day, as does the worship of the goddess Sophia in United Methodist Churches. On May 6, 2018, at the First United Methodist Church – Omaha, Dr. Jane Florence delivered a message titled, “Meeting Sophia,” which promoted not just the worship of Sophia, but actually the replacing of the One True God, the Great I AM, with the false god Sophia. In fact, her message concluded with a sojourner seeking divine enlightenment and meeting the goddess Sophia. “I am called Sophia” she tells him. “I'd like to talk again. Where do you live? Where can I find you?” he asks her. Her response should send chills down your spine and send you running for the holy water. She says to him, “Seek and you will find me. Knock and the door of your heart will open. Then you will know. I AM with you always.” [emphasis in original]. Note: the “slim conservative majority” is still, after more than a quarter century, continuing to allow all of this abhorrent, antichrist, anti-God behavior, beliefs, and practices.
So no, Dr. Mohler, no. The United Methodist Church is not a Christian denomination, not by any stretch of the imagination. The “slim conservative majority” has not thwarted any attempted liberal takeover of the denomination. If anything, it has encouraged the liberal homosexual agenda by capitulating to it decades ago. News articles similar to Dr. Mohler's have been plastered all over the internet since the completion of the UMC General Conference a few days ago, and one can not help but notice them. It was not that Dr. Mohler wrote his article in a substantially different way than any of the other articles, it was just that it was one more, and one more too many.
I stood all I can stands, and I can't stands n'more.
It was my Popeye Point.
The only question now is, when will the Church, the Body of Christ, have a Popeye Point, where they can stand no more blasphemy against our Creator and Savior?

1 Comment

Is The Revoice Conference Really Necessary (or even biblical)?

6/17/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around the fact that this is even an issue in the Christian Church. I really am. I have already resigned myself to the fact that the world has lost its ever-lovin' mind; but I have always believed – at least since becoming a Christian, that the one place we as Christians could always look to for sanity in an insane world, is the Church. The Christian Church, that is, not those ostensibly Christian churches which profess to be Christian while at the same time engaging in such practices as ordaining non-celibate homosexuals, condoning abortion, and allowing witchcraft rituals to be performed in the sanctuaries of their affilited churches (i.e. the Presbyterian Church, USA; the United Methodist Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; the Episcopal Church of America; and the United Church of Christ). No, I mean the actual Christian Church. The Church who believes the Bible to be the actual, inerrant, infallible Holy Word of God. ] Apparently I was wrong, because now there is Revoice.
The Revoice Conference is a pro-LGBT conference designed to “revoice” (or “to update or refurbish with a new, fresh voice.” – according to their website) the “conversation” between heterosexual Christians and “celibate LGBT Christians,” and Christians who experience same-sex attraction. Do you sense a problem with this? Yeah, I thought so, and I sense it as well. The conference is being held next month in St. Louis, Missouri at Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA). Yes, PCA. The Presbyterian Church in America. If the PCA denomination endorses this conference, then the problem is more widespread than I thought.
Same-sex attraction is a cleaned up, dressed up, politically correct term for homosexual attraction. Nothing more, nothing less. The problem I see with the concept behind Revoice is, that homosexuality is a sin. So, in reality Revoice is a conference that is centered around an examination of, and a discussion of, and an embracing of sin. In this case, the sin of homosexuality. Some are saying this conference is a bad idea, some say it is a good idea and long overdue as there are professing Christians who experience same-sex (homosexual) attraction
According to the Revoice Conference website, Revoice 2018 is designed around, “Supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality” the conference bills itself as offering:
  • New Community. “Gather together with other gender and sexual minorities and those who love them and experience a new kind of gospel community.”
  • Better Conversation. “Listen to, learn from, and participate in conversations with speakers who bring a nuanced perspective to the table of discussion.”
  • Diverse Collective. “Benefit from curated presentations on a wide variety of topics related to LGBT experience and the historic, Christian sexual ethic.”
The three keynote speakers (Wesley Hill, Eve Tushnet, and Nate Collins) all identify as “homosexual Christians.” Wesley Hill states he is celibate; Eve Tushnet states, “I really think the most important thing is, I really like being gay and I really like being Catholic” (thus demonstrating the ecumenical aspect of the conference); and Nate Collins states he is “a gay man in a mixed orientation marriage.” The conference worship leader, Gregory Coles is the author of “Single, Gay, Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity.” Of the 28 (and counting) workshop presenters, most of them identify as either “homosexual Christians,” or as being pro-LGBT, including one who is a good friend of a well known “drag queen.” The 20 conference “workshops” include:
Rekindling Hope as a Sexual Minority in the Church
How can we fight back against the temptation towards despair of being a sexual minority committed to historic Christian teachings on sex? How might we engage our longings as we await our King's return? Join me as we consider what it may look like to abound in hope, together
Journey to Embrace: A Conversation on Empowering the Church to Embrace the LGBT+ Community in Fresh Ways
How can we live in harmony with the historic Christian sexual ethic while also radically embracing the LGBT+ community?
Redeeming Queer Culture: An Adventure
For the sexual minority seeking to submit his or her life fully to Christ and to the historic Christian sexual ethic, queer culture presents a bit of a dilemma; rather than combing through and analyzing to find which parts are to be rejected, to be redeemed, or to be received with joy (Acts 17:16-34), Christians have often discarded the virtues of queer culture along with the vices, which leaves culturally connected Christian sexual minorities torn between two cultures, two histories, and two communities. So questions that have until now been largely unanswered remain: what does queer culture (and specifically, queer literature and theory) have to offer us who follow Christ? What queer treasure, honor, and glory will be brought into the New Jerusalem at the end of time (Revelation 21:24-26)?


What if, however, Revoice was about a sin other than the sin of homosexuality? Would it still be as attractive? Would people really want to be associated with such a thing? When you replace the sin of homosexuality with a different sin in the Revoice literature, the reality of what Revoice actually is (in spite of all the assurances given by its supporters) soon becomes clear. An acceptance of sin. So let's do that. What if Revoice was about liars? What happens if we revise the Revoice website to be a conference about “Christian liars?”


Revoice 2018
Supporting, encouraging, and empowering liars, those who lie, those attracted to lying, and other lying Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of telling the truth.
New Community. Gather together with other liars and truth-challenged minorities and those who love them and experience a new kind of gospel community.
Better Conversation. Listen to, learn from, and participate in conversations with liars who bring a nuanced perspective to the table of discussion.
Diverse Collective. Benefit from curated presentations on a wide variety of topics related to the liar experience and the historic, Christian truth ethic.
Workshops
Rekindling Hope as a Truth-Challenged Minority in the Church
How can we fight back against the temptation towards despair of being a truth-challenged minority committed to historic Christian teachings on truth? How might we engage our longings as we await our King's return? Join me as we consider what it may look like to abound in hope, together.
Journey to Embrace: A Conversation on Empowering the Church to Embrace the Liar Community in Fresh Ways
How can we live in harmony with the historic Christian truth ethic while also radically embracing the liar community?
Redeeming Liar Culture: An Adventure
For the truth-challenged minority seeking to submit his or her life fully to Christ and to the historic Christian truth ethic, liar culture presents a bit of a dilemma; rather than combing through and analyzing to find which parts are to be rejected, to be redeemed, or to be received with joy (Acts 17:16-34), Christians have often discarded the virtues of the liar culture along with the vices, which leaves culturally connected Christian truth-challenged minorities torn between two cultures, two histories, and two communities. So questions that have until now been largely unanswered remain: what does the liar culture (and specifically, liar literature and theory) have to offer us who follow Christ? What liar treasure, honor, and glory will be brought into the New Jerusalem at the end of time (Revelation 21:24-26)?


Or, what if Revoice was about murderers? What happens if we revise the Revoice website to be a conference about “Christian murderers?”


Revoice 2018
Supporting, encouraging, and empowering murderers, those who murder, those attracted to murder, and other murdering Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of the sanctity of life.
New Community. Gather together with other murderers and murder-oriented minorities and those who love them and experience a new kind of gospel community.
Better Conversation. Listen to, learn from, and participate in conversations with murderers who bring a nuanced perspective to the table of discussion.
Diverse Collective. Benefit from curated presentations on a wide variety of topics related to the murder experience and the historic, Christian sanctity of life ethic.
Workshops
Rekindling Hope as a Murder-Oriented Minority in the Church
How can we fight back against the temptation towards despair of being a murder-oriented minority committed to historic Christian teachings on the sanctity of life? How might we engage our longings as we await our King's return? Join me as we consider what it may look like to abound in hope, together.
Journey to Embrace: A Conversation on Empowering the Church to Embrace the Murder Community in Fresh Ways
How can we live in harmony with the historic Christian sanctity of life ethic while also radically embracing the murderer community?
Redeeming Murderer Culture: An Adventure
For the murder-oriented minority seeking to submit his or her life fully to Christ and to the historic Christian sanctity of life ethic, murderer culture presents a bit of a dilemma; rather than combing through and analyzing to find which parts are to be rejected, to be redeemed, or to be received with joy (Acts 17:16-34), Christians have often discarded the virtues of the murderer culture along with the vices, which leaves culturally connected Christian murder-oriented minorities torn between two cultures, two histories, and two communities. So questions that have until now been largely unanswered remain: what does the murderer culture (and specifically, murderer literature and theory) have to offer us who follow Christ? What murderer treasure, honor, and glory will be brought into the New Jerusalem at the end of time (Revelation 21:24-26)?


And just one more. Since Revoice is about a sexually immoral sin, let's change that sin to a different sexually immoral sin. What if Revoice was about pedophiles? What happens if we revise the Revoice website to be a conference about “Christian pedophiles?”


Revoice 2018
Supporting, encouraging, and empowering pedophiles, those who engage in pedophilia, those attracted to pedophilia, and other pedophilic Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.
New Community. Gather together with other pedophiles and sexual deviant minorities and those who love them and experience a new kind of gospel community.
Better Conversation. Listen to, learn from, and participate in conversations with pedophiles who bring a nuanced perspective to the table of discussion.
Diverse Collective. Benefit from curated presentations on a wide variety of topics related to the pedophilia experience and the historic, Christian truth ethic.
Workshops
Rekindling Hope as a Sexual Deviant Minority in the Church
How can we fight back against the temptation towards despair of being a sexual deviant minority committed to historic Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality? How might we engage our longings as we await our King's return? Join me as we consider what it may look like to abound in hope, together.
Journey to Embrace: A Conversation on Empowering the Church to Embrace the Pedophilic Community in Fresh Ways
How can we live in harmony with the historic Christian marriage and sexuality ethic while also radically embracing the pedophile community?
Redeeming Pedophile Culture: An Adventure
For the sexual deviant minority seeking to submit his or her life fully to Christ and to the historic Christian marriage and sexuality ethic, pedophile culture presents a bit of a dilemma; rather than combing through and analyzing to find which parts are to be rejected, to be redeemed, or to be received with joy (Acts 17:16-34), Christians have often discarded the virtues of the pedophile culture along with the vices, which leaves culturally connected Christian pedophile minorities torn between two cultures, two histories, and two communities. So questions that have until now been largely unanswered remain: what does the pedophile culture (and specifically, pedophile literature and theory) have to offer us who follow Christ? What pedophile treasure, honor, and glory will be brought into the New Jerusalem at the end of time (Revelation 21:24-26)?

Now, I am not saying that homosexuals or those experiencing homosexual attraction are liars, murderers or pedophiles. Not by a long shot. Nor do I believe that they are. Again, not by a long shot. I trust, however, that by changing the topic of the conference from one sin to another you can see the anti-biblical, anti-Christian reality of the Revoice Conference. Do Christians who struggle with homosexual attraction/temptation need and deserve our understanding, our love, our compassion, our prayer, our fellowship? Absolutely. By the same token, Christians who struggle with the temptation to lie, steal, commit adultery, fornicate, murder, etc., also need the same level of love, compassion, prayer, fellowship, etc. What Christians who struggle with homosexual attraction/temptation do not need is a conference that tells them its okay to experience homosexual attraction/temptation. They do not need to be told that one can be both homosexual and a Christian; because the simple fact is, there is no such thing as a “gay Christian,” or a “lesbian Christian.” There are no “LGBT Christians.” The entire LGBT ethos is antithetical to God, to Scripture, and to Christianity.

The bottom line is this, homosexuality is a sin. It is an abomination to God. Scripture clearly and explicitly teaches this. And having a conference replete with discussions, lectures and workshops all centered around how to embrace sin, accept sin, look for the good in sin; and to support, encourage and empower those who are struggling with the temptation to sin “so they can flourish” in the Church is unbiblical to the Nth degree.
All Christians struggle with the temptation to sin. It's part of being human. It's caused by living in a corrupt human body, made corrupt by the sin of Adam; and the only – THE ONLY – way to overcome those temptations is to follow the God prescribed treatment plan set forth in Scripture:
1. Recognize your sin for what it is: SIN, and it is an affront to the holy and righteous God whom we serve.
2. Recognize that sin is endemic to all mankind. We are all infected with it, both believer and unbeliever alike. The difference between the two is, however, that while unbelievers are enslaved to their sin, chained, shackled, and controlled by their sin; the Christian is not. The Christian has the ability, through Christ, to be victorious over their sin nature. Not completely free from sin (which will only happen when we receive our glorified bodies), but no longer chained to and controlled by our sin.
3. Confess your sin to God, sincerely repent of your sin, and God, who is faithful and true will forgive your sin. Do this every time you sin, whether physically sin, or sin in your heart and mind. Confess it, repent of it, in all truth and sincerity. Every. Single. Time.
4. Understand the purpose of trials and temptations. They are not arbitrary. They do not randomly happen to Christians; and they do serve a purpose. They not only teach us to be patient in waiting on the Lord for our deliverance; they not only teach us to stand strong in the Lord; they not only teach us to be dependent on the Lord; but through the grace, mercy and strength of the Lord, they actually enable us to do these things. This is what can be referred to as the maturation aspect of sanctification. When you were born again in Christ, you became a new creation; and, like any new born, growth takes time and is not without its share of skinned knees and stubbed toes. It is a process of growth that helps us grow in Christ likeness, in holiness, in Christian maturity. The Bible refers to this process as being transformed by the renewing our our mind and the mortification of the flesh.
4. Ensure you are in His word daily. And I am not talking about a quick five minute devotional reading. I am talking about taking your time – serious time, and studying His word. Give up an hour or two of television watching if you have to, and give that time to the One who died for you.
5. Spend time, again, serious time, in prayer. Real prayer. Confessional, supplicatory, worshipful, sincere prayer. At least once a day, but more often if possible.
6. Surround yourself with God's people. Corporate worship, corporate prayer, fellowship. The love and encouragement that is shared among true believers in God is unequaled in any other environment.
7. Trust God. No, I mean sincerely trust God. If you believe in Him, if you believe in Jesus Christ, then really believe in Him. Love Him with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul. With all that you are and with all that you have. Follow Him without hesitation. Obey Him without question. Live for Him without condition.
There you have it. Seven steps to biblically dealing with same-sex (homosexual) attraction; or any attraction to sin and the temptation to sin. No conference necessary, because God does not need a conference, nor can He be replaced by one regardless of how well meaning they may ostensibly be.
A final word for Christians struggling with same-sex (homosexual) attraction, or attraction to any sin and/or the temptation to sin. A brief lesson to remember and to constantly remind yourself of. We have three enemies in life. No, not the office bully, or unbearable neighbor, or some other human enemy; but three real enemies who are equally deceitful, dangerous, and damaging. They are our outer enemy: The World; our inner enemy: The Flesh; and our arch-enemy: Satan. Each one will cajole, coerce, lure with attractive bait, deceive, lie, damage and destroy. The World will use peer pressure, advertising, entertainment, so-called “societal norms,” threats, legislation, litigation and more all in a concerted effort to get you to sin, to accept sin, to condone sin, and to deny your faith in one way or another. The Flesh will also cajole, coerce and lure you to sin. It will tell you, “It's okay. It's not really sin to just fantasize about it. Come on, everyone is doing it. You want people to like you don't you? You don't want to stand out like a sore thumb. You don't want to be arrested do you?” The Flesh will use many of the same tactics the World does, but on a more personal level. And Satan, the dragon, the deceiver, the father of lies, the prince of the power of the air. He will utilize all of these tactics, and more, and on an industrial scale. Not only will he attack us, but he has an army of demonic minions at his beck and call to do his dirty bidding in attacking us. But that's okay. As our Lord Jesus has said, “...in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33 ESV)

1 Comment

Can A Christian Reject God And Still Be A Christian?

9/7/2015

1 Comment

 
Can A Christian Reject God and Still Be A Christian?
There are those who really believe they can!
Picture
Excellent sermon last Sunday, as pastor spoke on church growth. The basics of the sermon were that there are two types of church growth, numerical and spiritual, and one does not necessarily guarantee the other. In fact, if a church experiences numerical growth but not spiritual growth, then what results is a church full of “tares,” or false Christians. [see Matthew 13:24-30 for a fuller explanation of tares or weeds]. As pastor pointed out in today's sermon, one of the marks of a true Christian as opposed to a “tare” or false Christian, is that the true Christian stands steadfast in purity of doctrine and purity of behavior – something the false Christian cannot do, or at least can only mimic for a relatively short period of time.

Conversations I have had this past week, many with “professing Christians,” have caused this sermon to stand out more prominently than many of pastor's sermons do, and has caused me to ask myself some important questions – in fact, three important questions. They are:
1. Can a person reject God and still be a Christian?
2. Can a person disregard God and still be a Christian?
3. Can a person live a life of willful and habitual disobedience to God and still be a Christian?

Can A Person Reject God and Still Be A Christian?
The key word here is “reject.” What exactly is meant by “reject”?

The term reject is defined as, 1. a verb, “to dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.” 2. a noun, “a person or thing dismissed as failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes.” So can a person dismiss God as inadequate or inappropriate or not to one's taste” and still be a Christian; or, perhaps identifying God as “failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes”? I believe that for some professing Christians, the answer is yes, and I would point to those conversations I have had this past week as examples of this.

In a conversation I had with a professing Christian, I was told by this person that they felt their ability to separate their faith life from their public life was an admirable attribute. They felt that not only did God not belong in the workplace and even more so through them, but that mankind and man's law were actually higher than and more authoritative than God and God's law. Is this person rejecting God? According to the above definition, yes. They have decided that God law did not meet the standard but that man's law did. They have decided that God does not satisfy the tastes of others in the workplace or public life, and apparently not even their own taste when in the workplace or in public. And yet, they still insist that they are a Christian.

Jesus, however, had something else to say about those who insisted they were truly God's children, while placing man above God when it came to which had more authority. He said in Mark 7:6-8, “And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Jesus condemned those who did this, and it is highly doubtful that He would consider as His true followers, those who reject God. I think Charles Spurgeon explained it well when he said,
“To a man who lives unto God, nothing is secular, everything is sacred. He puts on his workday garment and it is a vestment to him. He sits down to his meal and it is a sacrament. He goes forth to his labor, and therein exercises the office of the priesthood. His breath is incense and his life a sacrifice.

He sleeps on the bosom of God, and lives and moves in the divine presence. To draw a hard and fast line and say, “This is sacred and this is secular,” is to my mind, diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ and the spirit of the gospel.


The Lord hath cleansed your houses, he has cleansed your bed chambers, your tables…He has made the common pots and pans of your kitchens to be as the bowls before the altar— if you know what you are and live according to your high calling. You housemaids, you cooks, you nurses, you ploughmen, you housewives, you traders, you sailors, your labor is holy if you serve the Lord Christ in it, by living unto Him as you ought to love. The sacred has absorbed the secular.”

Can a person disregard God and still be a Christian?
In another conversation, with a different “professing Christian,” I was told that those who condemn homosexual relationships will have to answer to God for their hate and bigotry, while the loving couples who are involved in committed homosexual relationships are virtually guaranteed entrance into heaven.

I have to admit that I was somewhat shocked that these words would come out of the mouth of a person who professed to be a follower of Jesus Christ, especially in light of God's own words concerning His moral law. God repeatedly condemns homosexuality, whether male homosexuality or female homosexuality, as an abominable sin. Repeatedly.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;” (Leviticus 20:13a)

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:26-28)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
[with regard to who will not enter heaven] “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,” (1 Timothy 1:10)

And God is equally clear regarding the definition of marriage – it involves one man and one woman.

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)
and
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)

Now, while I do understand that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuals have the right to get married, what the United States Supreme Court, and a great many people in the United States do not understand (and this includes some professing “Christians”), and have an even greater difficulty grasping, is that the United States Supreme Court does not have the power or the authority to over rule God. They are not higher than God, they are not greater than God, and it is the height of arrogance for anyone to believe that they are. They (the Supreme Court and others who look to them as the absolute ultimate law) should also not be surprised when God's people refuse to obey them, or any law or rule or rule maker or enforcer, when they are acting and ruling contrary to God. Acts 5:27-31 provides the true Christian with a pure and reasonable course of action when faced with a situation contrary to God,

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. (emphasis mine)

So, again, the question is asked, can a person disregard God and still be a Christian, especially when one disregards the very word of God? Again we turn to the definition of the word to discover its meaning. Disregard is defined as 1. a verb, pay no attention to, ignore, pay no attention/heed to, to disobey; and 2. a noun, disregard; the action or state of disregarding or ignoring something. Indifference, nonobservance, inattention, disobedience. Given the definition of the word disregard, and looking at 1 John 3:4, which says, “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” [Note: The Greek word used here to translate “lawlessness' (anomia) is also used to translate the words disobedience and sin], it is clear that one cannot live a life of disobedience to God and still be a Christian.

Can a person live a life of willful and habitual disobedience to God and still be a Christian?
The Bible is God's word to man. It does not merely “contain” the word of God, as some think, but it actually IS the word of God; and a Christian accepts the Bible for what it is, and lives according to what God teaches in the Bible.

A brief side note to those who like to cherry pick passages from the Bible to use as (what they think are) arguments against the Bible. To those I say, before you attempt to do this, read the Bible so you can understand the context of those passages, and take a class in Bibliology so you can understand the difference between civil law, ceremonial law, and moral law. After you do that, we'll talk. Now back to the subject at hand.

We know the Bible is the word of God, quite frankly, because it says so. There is, of course, much more to it, but the basic understanding is here. The Bible states multiple times, “Thus says the Lord,” and “God said,” and “God spoke.” Jesus said to His followers in Luke 24:44-45, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (emphasis mine); and He said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” The words of Jesus are Scripture, they are God's words.

2 Timothy 3:15–17 says, “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

All Scripture, each of the 39 books of the Old Testament and each of the 27 books of the New Testament, are God's word. Each word was “breathed out by God.” Each word is useful for equipping Christians for every good work. We need nothing more to live our lives for God. There are those who, for one reason or another, believe that Christians should, and should be required to leave their faith at home or in the church. They believe, for one reason or another, that when a conflict exists between the laws of man and law of God, that man must be obeyed and God must be ignored. They believe, for one reason or another, that God belongs only inside a church building, or inside a private residence, or inside the private thoughts of Christians; but must never be allowed into the public square. I say that

it is the height of arrogance for anyone to think they are higher than God, or that they have more authority than God, or that their laws or rules supersede those of God; and when those who believe these things profess with their mouths that they are Christians, then I say, “what does the word of God say about their viewpoints?”

Disobedience to God is sin. Continued, habitual disobedience to God is, well, I'll let God Himself say it. “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that He [Jesus] appeared in order to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him [Jesus] keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:4-10)

If you are going to life a life of continual habitual sin, then you are not a Christian. It doesn't matter what anyone here on earth tells you, because God is the highest authority. He is the Creator, and the creation does not dictate to the Creator. If you come to God, it must be on God's terms, otherwise you are deceived, and if you remain deceived and in your sin – enslaved to your sin, you will face God to give an account for your sin, and you will be judged. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 gives a vivid description of the judgment that will befall those who continue to reject, ignore, disregard and disobey God. They will be “afflicted” when “the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:31)

There is hope, however, for those who with a remorseful heart turn away from their sin and turn to God, through Jesus, to seek forgiveness for their sin, as He will be true to His word and will embrace you and forgive you your sins. “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)


All Scripture quoted is from the English Standard Version (ESV)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers unless otherwise noted.
1 Comment

Homosexuality: Inherited Trait or Personal Choice?

5/19/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
In June of this year, the United States Supreme Court will make a decision as to whether or not homosexual marriage is a legal right. Over the last few decades homosexual activists and advocates have been pushing for what they term as “equality.” They have proposed that homosexuals have a right to protected status (which they now have), and a right to be married and to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by those in traditional marriages (traditional being defined as one man and one woman). I think, however, that we have lost sight of one important aspect, a foundational aspect, of this ongoing debate, and that is, is homosexuality an inherited trait that homosexuals themselves have no control over, or, is homosexuality a personal choice.

The standard response from the Christian standpoint is that homosexuality is a personal choice. It is a sin, and those that live a homosexual lifestyle will be condemned to an eternity in hell. On the other side of the fence are the homosexual advocates and activists who claim that extensive scientific studies conducted over the past few decades have proven beyond all doubt that homosexuality is an inherited epigenetic trait, that homosexuals have no choice and no control over whether or not they are homosexual. They are simply born that way.

In a response to a recent Facebook post regarding the impact a pro-same sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court could feasibly have on Christian schools, I received some interesting pro-homosexual (and anti-Christian) comments. Rather than lay them out as a series of similarly worded individual comments made by multiple individuals, I have, for the sake of clarity and space, simply combined them into one cohesive pro-homosexual argument.
“It is about time that they quit persecuting folks [homosexuals] who God made to be the way they are. In some societies, they are considered almost sacred and certainly special. I have two couples who are good friends, they have been together longer than any of their 'married' brothers and sister who have been married and divorced a couple of times. This isn't a choice people are making. A simple conversation about it with someone who is gay, or reading the science on the subject, will make this very clear. It is in their nature. It is not a thing they choose. Many even fight against it due to societal pressure, and strongly wish it wasn't the way they were 'wired.'

While I might not be keeping up with the studies, one scientist, William Rice, says, 'Most mainstream biologists have shied away from studying it because of the social stigma. It's been swept under the rug, people are still stuck on this idea that it's unnatural. Well there are many examples of homosexuality in nature, it's very common.' He says homosexual behavior has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep and other animals.

Rice's model still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs, be he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation, and that his team has mapped out a way for other scientists to test their work. No sense putting it in my words when it has been studied and documented – most studies underway – you might want to read this: http://www.usnews.com/.../scientists-may-have-finally. I can give you countless scientific studies that show homosexuality is most definitely not a choice, but rather a trait passed down through heredity, even though the parents were not affected.

Some scientists say, 'Fascinating as it may be to understand the biological basis of sexual orientation, however, not everyone is convinced it's a necessary line of investigation. 'should we test this? Is it important for us to know?' Homosexuality is not a disease, it's part of natural human variation. I'm not sure there's a good enough reason to delve this deeply into it. I think we've reached the point that we have enough evidence that there's a biological basis for sexual orientation. It would be more helpful to people to get a better handle on the epigenetics of cancer or mental illness.'

I realize that you do not believe in science. There is no possible way you could since you truly believe every word in the Bible. You really believe that God wrote everything, even though a great many people actually penned the words. I think you might believe in science in a way, but only as long as it does not, in any way, challenge anything said in the Bible!

Yep, God made them that way. You think someone all these years would have chosen that? And no, I am not gay. Can't even say or write the other word, LOL! By the way, I know a few who are regular church goers. Christians they are and much better at it than a lot of profess to be.

It is extremely important to prove to the 'Word is total truth' folks [Christians], that homosexuals deserve to be accepted as Christians the same as anyone else! God made them, and God does not make mistakes. But, his Word can easily be misinterpreted!”
It seems to me there are four key issues being addressed in the above pro-homosexual / anti-Christian commentary:
1. Science proves that homosexuality is an inherited trait.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice.
3. Christian's are anti-science.
4. Homosexual's should be accepted as Christians.

Point #1: Science proves that homosexuality is an inherited trait.
I Have read the USNews article that was presented as evidence to support the premise that homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be an inherited trait. Although throughout both the article, and the research paper the article has been based on, the scientists consistently claim this to be true, a closer look at these sources reveals that their premise is anything but true. Let's look at some of the statements made in the article (emphases mine):
“A group of scientists suggested”

“The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link”

“thought to have some sort of hereditary link”

“Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce.”

Although the premise of the article is that science has proven that homosexuality is an inherited trait, these statements seem to be saying the exact opposite. Their premise is actually only “suggested,” they knew it was “not a strictly genetic link,” and if it was an inherited trait it should have died out long ago. This should be troublesome to those who are determined to find such a link.

In December 2012 scientists Sergey Gavrilets, William Rice and Urban Friberg published their epigenetic homosexuality study (upin which the above article was based). Their research was based on the presupposition that there must be a biological foundation for homosexuality (the only alternative being, of course, that Christianity is correct and homosexuality is both a choice and a sin). This study proposed that there are certain epi-marks within the genome that determine whether a person becomes homosexual or heterosexual. Their theory is ostensibly based on the “many examples of homosexuality in nature” such as “has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep, and other animals.” The scientists were so confident in their theory that they predicted, “This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test.” (emphasis mine). In fact, they were so confident in their theory they went on to state, “If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order.” That was in December 2012. Therefore, according to the scientists, their theory should have been tested and proven no later than June 2013. By Sept 2013, Gavrilets, Rice and Friberg were still only able to hypothesize, and still unable to prove their theory as they predicted; and as recent as 2014 it still had not been proven. This doesn't say much for either their theory or their prediction making skills.

Is there a “gay gene” as homosexual advocates continually insist? No. In spite of repeated attempts to find a genetic correlate to homosexuality, there has been no definitive link discovered thus far.

The initial pro-homosexual argument above quotes someone by the name of McCarthy (they gave no source) who states, “Fascinating as it may be to understand the biological basis of sexual orientation, however, not everyone is convinced it's a necessary line of investigation. 'should we test this? Is it important for us to know?' Homosexuality is not a disease [which I agree with this, although no one is really claiming it is, so this is a red herring], it's part of natural human variation [given that sin is our natural state in this life, I can agree with that as well]. I'm not sure there's a good enough reason to delve this deeply into it. I think we've reached the point that we have enough evidence that there's a biological basis for sexual orientation. It would be more helpful to people to get a better handle on the epigenetics of cancer or mental illness.”

This is an interesting comment to use to support the argument that homosexuality has a biological basis. What this McCarthy person is saying, is, “It's not a disease [no one said it was], we have enough evidence to prove our theory [no, there is no such evidence], so let's just forget the whole thing and focus on something more worthwhile.” This is nothing more than verbal slight-of-hand designed to distract people from the fact that there really is no evidence proving a biological basis for homosexuality.

Rather than limit my research to the single link provided in the initial pro-homosexual argument above, I dug a little deeper and found the same findings among other pro-homosexual advocate scientists. For instance, Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, has conducted a study designed to support the existence of the so-called “gay gene.” The results of the study were presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Rather than find the “gay gene,” however, the best Dr. Bailey and his colleagues could do was to note an area of the X chromosome (called Xq28) and an area of DNA on chromosome 8, which may play some role in male sexual orientation, however, Dr. Bailey and his colleagues had to admit that exactly how these chromosomal areas affect male sexual orientation are unknown, and exactly which, if any, of the genes in these areas affect sexual orientation are also unknown.

In fact, Dr. Bailey admitted that the gene or genes in the Xq28 area of the X chromosome which he believes may possibly influence sexual orientation have only a limited and a variable impact, and were neither sufficient nor necessary to make anyone homosexual. Let me say that again. The gene or genes that are “suspected” of “possibly” being the “gay gene” are neither sufficient nor necessary to make anyone a homosexual. Now, I am not the one saying this. Science is saying this.

The study went on to point out that in the case of identical twins who carry the exact replica of each other's DNA, when one twin is a homosexual, the twin is more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual. This fact alone tells us that the existence of a “gay gene” is nothing more than a myth. Even Dr. Bailey himself admitted that environmental factors are influential as to whether or not a person was a homosexual.

Dr. Alan Sanders, Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University and a colleague of Dr. Bailey, said, “Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality.” In other words, while there are genes that contribute to a person's sexuality, that is all they do. They do not determine whether or not a person is heterosexual or homosexual. That is a choice.

Dr. Bailey stated in an interview with Science magazine, “It looks promising for there being genes in both of these regions. But until somebody finds a gene, we don’t know.” Is there a “gay gene?” One of the leading scientists in this area of research says, “we don't know.” “...until somebody finds a gene, we don't know.”

As I have been saying from the beginning, to date, there has been no “gay gene” found. Period. Regarding the relationship of sexual orientation and genetics, there have been various studies conducted by various scientists, many coming to different conclusions, and sometimes wildly different conclusions. The simple fact remains that there has never been discovered a single determinant, other than personal choice, for sexual orientation. Ever. The best that scientists can do is theorize that sexual orientation may possibly be determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors, although the genetic aspect of this theory has never been proven.

Point #2: Homosexuality is not a choice.
As pointed out in Point #1, science does not prove that homosexuality is an inherited trait. In fact, science, or at least a small overall percentage of scientists, have theorized it is an inheritaed trait, but they have been completely unable to prove their theory. Therefore, homosexuality is, as I have consistently stated, a choice, and it is a conscious choice.

God did not “make” anyone to be a homosexual. In fact, God has clearly and repeatedly stated in His Word that homosexual activity is a sin (see Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). In fact, Romans 1:18-32 teaches that homosexuality (as well as other sins) is a result of denying and disobeying God, and those engaging in sinful behavior will be “given over” to their sin and allowed to receive the due penalty of their sin. This is known as the justice of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 teaches that those who practice homosexuality will not enter heaven. This is due to the complete and perfect holiness of God (see 1 Peter 1:15-16; Isaiah 6:3; and Habakkuk 1:13). He simply cannot allow human beings who are still in their sin to live in His presence.

Therefore, God cannot “make” people to be homosexuals, as it would be contrary to his nature.

That all being said, however, I do agree that people should not persecute homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals. In fact, I don't believe anyone should be persecuted because of their beliefs or who they are. (the sole exception being, however, that I do think criminals should be incarcerated.) I do not believe people should be persecuted because of their race, their ethnicity, their gender (and there are only two – male and female), their disabilities, or their religious beliefs as long as those religious beliefs do not include physically harming another human being. This also includes Christians being persecuted by homosexual activists, the media and the state which is equally as wrong as persecuting someone simply because they happen to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. In the eyes of God, homosexuals are no different than any other unbeliever, in that all lost in their sin, and are worthy of the love of God, and the love of Christians. I think those who profess to be Christians, and who harbor hate in their heart against homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, need to read Matthew 5:21-24 and 1 John 3:15, and then seriously examine his or her own Christianity. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23 that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is actually a Christian.

Point #3. Christian's are anti-science.
I have to confess that this premise from the above pro-homosexual argument actually made me chuckle. Not only is this a false statement but it is also a condescending and patronizing statement. This statement, or variations of it, are often used by atheists and other anti-Christians in an attempt to place Christians in a negative light, to make Christians appear as if they are ignorant, unintelligent, illogical individuals who cling to myths long ago refuted by science, and thus make any argument or defense presented by Christians immediately discountable.

What follows is a brief list of a few of the many, many highly respected scientists who have professed to be Christians. You may recognize one or two of these names:

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) Introduced heliocentrism, the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system, and that the earth and other planets revolve around it.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Considered among the fathers of empiricism and is credited with establishing the inductive method of experimental science via what is called the scientific method today.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642): Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", and "the Father of Modern Science".

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630): Gave us Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which was based on empirical data that he obtained from Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations.

René Descartes (1596–1650) French mathematician, scientist and philosopher. He is well known for, among other things, his work on geometry and is honored by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): Well known for Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).

Isaac Newton (1643–1727): He is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. Though some biographers label him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.

Sir Michael Faraday (1791–1867) known for his contributions in establishing electromagnetic theory and his work in chemistry such as establishing electrolysis.

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824–1907) a British mathematical physicist and engineer, he did important work in the mathematical analysis of electricity and formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and did much to unify the emerging discipline of physics in its modern form.

Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894) German physicist who first conclusively proved the existence of electromagnetic waves theorized by James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, thereby making possible the development of radio, television, and radar by proving that electricity can be transmitted in electromagnetic waves. The international unit of frequency (one cycle per second), is named after him.

Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) British physicist responsible for a remarkable series of discoveries in the fields of radioactivity and nuclear physics. He discovered alpha and beta rays, set forth the laws of radioactive decay, and identified alpha particles as helium nuclei. He is known as the father of nuclear physics, and considered by many to be the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday.

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884): The "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants.

Louis Pasteur (1822–1895): Inventor of the pasteurization method, a French chemist and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines.

Max Planck (1858–1947): He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics.

George Washington Carver (1864-1943): American scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.

Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937): Guglielmo Marconi was known for his pioneering work on long distance radio transmission and for his development of Marconi's law and a radio telegraph system. Marconi is often credited as the inventor of radio, and he shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Johannes Stark (1874-1957): German physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1919 for his “discovery of the Doppler effect in canal rays and the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields.”

Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, mathematician, physicist. He is credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom.”

Wernher von Braun (1912–1977): Aerospace engineer and space architect, he was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the United States and is considered one of the “Fathers of Rocket Science.” According to one NASA source, he is “without doubt, the greatest rocket scientist in history.” In 1975 he received the National Medal of Science.

Freeman Dyson (born 1923): He has won the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis Thomas Prize. He also ranked 25th in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll. He has won the Templeton Prize and delivered one of the Gifford Lectures. He is famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics.

Werner Arber (born 1929): Werner Arber is a Swiss microbiologist and geneticist. Along with American researchers Hamilton Smith and Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of restriction endonucleases.

Raymond Vahan Damadian (born 1936) An American physician, medical practitioner, and inventor of the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Scanning Machine), and collaborated on the development of an MRI compatible pace maker. Dr. Damadian also produced the first commercial MRI machine. Damadian received a National Medal of Technology in 1988, was honored with the Innovation Award in Bioscience from The Economist in2003, and his original MRI full-body scanner was presented to the Smithsonian Institution in the 1980s.

John Lennox (born 1945) An Irish mathematician, philosopher of science, and Christian apologist who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is a Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, a Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford and an Honorary Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. His works include The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups (Oxford Mathematical Monographs).

Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): A world-renowned paleontologist, who helped reshape modern theories about dinosaurs, particularly by adding support to the theory that some dinosaurs were endothermic (warm-blooded). Dr. Bakker currently serves as the Curator of Paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

Alister McGrath (born 1953) An intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History. He is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics.

Mike Hulme (born 1960): Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography at King's College London. He was formerly professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia between 1988 and 2013, which included being a member of the Climatic Research Unit (1988-2000) and then the founding Director (2000-2007) of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.

Rosalind Picard (born 1962) Rosalind Picard is a Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT, director and also the founder of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, and chief scientist and co-founder of Affectiva, an emotion measurement technology company that grew out of MIT’s Media Lab, which has developed a way for computers to recognize human emotions based on facial cues or physiological responses.

Jennifer Wiseman: An astronomer, Dr. Wiseman received her bachelor's degree in physics from MIT and her Ph.D. in Astronomy from Harvard University in 1995. She discovered periodic comet 114P/Wiseman-Skiff while working as an undergraduate research assistant in 1987. She is currently a Senior Astrophysicist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, where she previously headed the Laboratory for Exoplanets and Stellar Astrophysics.

I remind the reader that this is, comparatively speaking, a very brief list of scientists who were and are professing Christians. A recent survey noted that at least two million scientists in the United States alone are professing evangelical Christians. In fact, this same survey also found that these “evangelical scientists are more active in their faith than American evangelicals in general.” If I had included the names of all scientists who simply professed a belief in God while eschewing conventional religion, the list would be astronomical.

Clearly, the oft-made claim that Christians do not believe in science or cannot believe in science due to their faith, quite simply has absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality.

Point #4. Homosexual's should be accepted as Christians.
This is a subject which must be addressed in light of the whole Word of God, and not simply cherry picking specific verses with which to support one's own preconceptions and biases. To do any less would be a disservice to Christianity, to homosexuals, and most importantly, to God Himself.

So, what exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality? There are five passages of Scripture that specifically address the issue of homosexuality. They are:

Leviticus 18:22 = “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13a = “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;”

Romans 1:26-28 = “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 = “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality*, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
[*The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts]

1 Timothy 1:8-11 = “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

Clearly, the Leviticus passages identify homosexuality as an abomination. It is not a natural sexual act. The passages do not identify whether the writer is speaking of consensual homosexuality or forced or ritualistic; nor does it really matter. The key to these verses is that homosexuality in and of itself is an abomination. It is not natural.

The Romans passage also describes homosexual activity as contrary to nature, thereby reinforcing what the two Leviticus passages state. But the Romans passage goes even further by describing homosexual passions, and not necessarily the actual act itself, but the emotional drive associated with homosexuality as being the product of a debased main. The First Corinthians passages takes this even a step further by using the Greek words that refer to both the passive and the active participants in a consensual homosexual relationship as being unable to enter into heaven because they are homosexuals. And finally, the First Timothy passage states that homosexuality (as well as other sinful behaviors) are contrary to sound doctrine, or, in other words, contrary to the moral standard as established by God in His Word.

So, in a nutshell, homosexuality, whether referring to the act, whether referring to a consensual partnership or not, or whether referring to only the emotional passion that drives such an act, are all to be considered as an abomination, contrary to nature, contrary to the moral standard established by God and as the product of a debased mind.

There are several other Scripture passages that clearly state that the moral standard that God has established regarding marriage and sexual immorality (of which homosexuality is included), is that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively, and that those who engage in sexual immorality will not enter heaven – in other words, they are not Christian. [see: Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Colossians 3:5; Galatians 5:16 – among others]

Therefore, based on the Scriptures, the Word of God, homosexuals cannot be accepted as Christian's for the simple reason that a homosexual cannot be a Christian. To be a homosexual is to live a lifestyle patterned by sin, and, as 1 John 3:9 states, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” This does not mean that Christian's never commit a sin, but rather that a Christian cannot live a life that is patterned by sin. It is impossible because God the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian. Can a homosexual live a life that does not include homosexual encounters, whether physical, or mental fantasy's? No. Because once you remove those two items from a homosexual's life, they cease to be homosexual.

Two final points:

A refutation of the common objection that Scripture only condemns homosexual acts, not people who are born homosexual but never act on their homosexual desires.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Not only does this teach about committing adultery in the heart which is just as bad as actually committing it physically; but it also teaches us the principal that the passions that drive us to sin, when they are entertained in our minds, when we fantasize about committing that sin, that emotional passion, that fantasy, has caused us to actually be guilty of committing that sin! This is reiterated by the Apostle John in 1 John 2:16 when he writes, “For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.” (emphasis mine).

When a man fantasizes about a woman other than his wife, he has committed a sexually immoral act. The same is true if a woman does it, or even if a homosexual does it. That lustful look, that mental fantasy is no more than visual or mental fornication, or visual / mental adultery. And this is the concept that Jesus taught in Matthew 5:27-28. Jesus first states the seventh commandment, “you shall not commit adultery,” which is something the Pharisees He was talking to understood and agreed with. But then, He connected the eighth commandment with that part of the tenth commandment that says, “you shall not covet your neighbor's wife.” Jesus used the Greek word epithumeō to describe both the “commit adultery” when he quoted the seventh commandment, as well as the “covet” when we quoted the tenth commandment. The word means to long for, or desire, or covet or lust after. In other words, Jesus was teaching that the mental fantasy makes one just as guilty as if one had physically engaged in the sin, and in this instance, Jesus taught that desiring a person sexually was equal to engaging in sex with that person. The principal holds true whether talking about two unmarried people (which is fornication), A married person and someone other than a spouse (which is adultery) or fantasizing about a same-sex encounter (which is homosexuality). Homosexual desires that lead to homosexual fantasy's are no different in the eyes of God than engaging in physical homosexual activity. Both are equally sinful.

A Note To My Christian Brothers and Sisters Regarding Homosexuality

While we are correct to condemn homosexuality, we are wrong, very wrong, to condemn homosexuals themselves, especially when we consider that prior to our salvation we were just as guilty of sin and just as deserving of the hellish eternal destiny that is the lot of every unsaved sinner. Condemning any sinner, homosexual or otherwise is akin to pointing out the splinter in their eye while ignoring the plank in our own (Matthew 7:5).

As my pastor is fond of reminding us, we will never look into the eyes of anyone that the Lord does not love. We will never look into the eyes of anyone that the Lord did not die for. And this is an important thing to remember. Each and every sinner is deserving of our prayers and our compassion and our help. We are to take the gospel to the world (Matthew 28:16-20). That is our job, that is our responsibility. If we cannot love our fellow man, then the love of God does not dwell within us, and we cannot legitimately call ourselves Christian (1 John 4:20).

Therefore, we are to love every unsaved sinner, including homosexual's, and we are to minister to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sharing with them:
The truth about God (that He loves them completely – Romans 5:8; 2 Peter 3:9),
About sin (that all of sinned and fallen short and deserve the penalty of that sin, which is death – Romans 5:12; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23),
About forgiveness and love (that Jesus voluntarily died for them so as to provide them entrance into heaven – 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 4:25),
About repentance and confession (that they, like all of us, need to confess our sins to the Lord, repent of our sins, and seek forgiveness for our sin – 1 John 1:9; Matthew 3:2; Acts 3:19),
About our healing and our atonement (that God will heal us of our sinful desires if we live according to the Spirit of God, and that God sees us as cleansed from sin due to the Atoning death of Jesus Christ – Jeremiah 3:22; 1 John 1:9; Glatians 5:16-26; 1 John 2:2; Romans 3:25).

This is our responsibility, and if we shirk that responsibility either in part or in whole, as individuals or as a group, then we ourselves are in purposeful rebellion against God, living a life patterned by sin, and condemned by our unrepentant sin to an eternity in hell (1 John 3:5-9).


Sources:
All Scripture used is from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, used by permission.

Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay – Theory: Lesbians get it from their fathers, gay men from their mothers, By Jason Koebler, published Dec. 11, 2012, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS), published December 11, 2012, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php

Homosexuality via canalized sexual development: A testing protocol for a new epigenetic model, William R Rice,Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets, Published online July 19, 2013, Copyright © 2013 WILEY Periodicals, Inc., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840696/

“Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics 113 (6): 1827–32.”

“Långström, Niklas; Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein. (7 June 2008). "Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behaviour: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden". Archives of Sexual Behavior (Archives of Sexual Behavior) 39 (1): 75–80.”

Religious Communities, Science, Scientists, and Perceptions: A Comprehensive Survey – A paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, by Elaine Howard Ecklund, Rice University RUS Study PI, and Christopher Scheitle, Saint John’s University, RUS Senior Research Associate, February 16, 2014, http://elainehowardecklund.blogs.rice.edu/files/2014/02/RU_AAASPresentationNotes_2014_0220.pdf

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God, Copyright (c) 1995-2008 by Tihomir Dimitrov – compiler, M.Sc. In Psychology (1995), M.A. in Philosophy (1999), All rights reserved, http://nobelists.net

Matthew, IVP New Testament Commentary, by Craig S. Keener, Published by IVP Academic, November 5, 2011

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical – A new NAE-backed initiative wants to see if they can help scientists and evangelicals better understand each other, by Christine Herman in Chicago/ February 20, 2014, (Web-only), http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/study-2-million-scientists-identify-as-evangelical.html

Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science, Compiled by W. R. Miller, http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Seven Reasons Why a Scientist Believes in God by A. CRESSY MORRISON, Former President of the New York Academy of Sciences
http://www.dlshq.org/messages/sciblgod.htm

God knows, scientists are more religious than you think
http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/02/16/science-religion-aaas-hamonnye-evangelical/

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
http://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/

Scientists and Belief
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

List of Christian thinkers in science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

--Comments are open for this post, subject to moderator approval--
0 Comments

The Failure of Moral Relativism

4/24/2015

 
Picture
Moral relativism is the philosophical belief that there is no objective moral standpoint that is inherently correct that can be applied to all people, all cultures, all societies for all time. This belief holds that with regard to an individuals morality, personal beliefs and specific situations will determine the correct morals for that situation. Perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche explained moral relativism best when he said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” In other words, whatever works for you is right. Perhaps you can see the problems inherent in moral relativism.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason wrote an article for Salvo Magazine entitled, “Seven Things You Can't Do As A Moral Relativist”, in which he (obviously) lists these seven things. They are:
1. Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
2. Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
3. Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
4. Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
5. Relativists can’t improve their morality.
6. Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
7. Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.
During a conversation I recently had with with an individual, a professing Christian, who made the comment that morality was relative. Our conversation was so illustrative of the points being made by Mr. Koukl, I have to share it in conjunction with his above list. We had been discussing the homosexual marriage issue (he was for and I was against) that is being foisted upon America – and more importantly upon Christians – by a small but very vocal segment of our society. The person I was speaking with (I'll call him “Fred”) stated that. “People are people and morality is relative. Although we would consider the genocide of Indians to 'immoral' today, In the 1840's is was not. While gay marriage may be distasteful to some, it simply can't be immoral. What is immoral about two willing people of the same sex living together?”

“Fred” went on to explain that at his church he was a music minister and had always had gay men in key positions. He was aware of it, and even the pastor was aware of this, however, he said, “we don't meddle in parishioners private lives. Being gay is not a sin, Having sex outside wedlock is.”

As I went to explain that morality is not relative and, in fact, cannot be relative without disastrous results, is pointed to a recent news article as what happens when morality is considered relative, the gang rape of a young woman on a public beach, surrounded by hundreds of onlookers who did absolutely nothing other than video record the rape and then post it online. [Panama City Gang Rape: A Kitty Genovese for the YouTube Era, by Charlotte Lytton 04.16.15]

“Fred” tried to explain that what was different in the example of the Panama City gang rape is that in that incident there was a victim, therefore it was morally wrong because rape is a criminal action. However, that only addresses who is criminally responsible for that act, not who is morally wrong. I responded by asking “Fred” who he thought was morally wrong then? Was it the rapists? Was it the hundreds of onlookers who stood by and did nothing other than video record the rape? How about those who allowed the video to be posted to their website? How about the people who watched or downloaded the video? Are any of these people morally wrong? I asked “Fred” if he thought, as he apparently did, that an act is only immoral if there is a victim, then who decides if there actually is a victim? If a court of law allows a child molester to go free and makes the determination that the three year old that the molester actually raped, wasn't legally raped because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then no crime actually occurred and therefore there is no actual victim. Then, according to “Fred's” moral relativist belief, that rape of a three year old would not be immoral since the court determined that no rape took place.

Of course, “Fred” had no answer, and in fact, he told me that he could not argue with that. He did not, however, reject his moral relativism belief. “Fred's” responses, his arguments in our conversation perfectly illustrate Mr. Koukl's list of seven things a moral relativist cannot do. “Fred” could not accuse those involved in the Panama City gang rape of wrongdoing. He could not call what they did wrong or evil, he could not place any blame upon them for the rape or the video recording of it and he could not say that what the rapists or video recorders did was unfair or unjust; and clearly, “Fred” was unable to hold a meaningful moral discussion.

This is the problem, the failure of moral relativism. Since nothing is really immoral or moral, other than what the individual “believes” is moral or immoral in a given situation or at a particular moment in time, the moral relativist cannot, as Mr, Koukl states, improve their morality because they have no objective or absolute moral standard.

As Christian's – and I will even go so far as to make the distinction of “True Christian's,” we have an absolute, unchanging moral standard, and that standard is God. In fact, every person has that standard of God's absolute morality written on their heart, their DNA so to speak. The problem arises when the individual chooses to ignore that absolute moral standard in favor of their own personal wants and desires which they rationalize and justify by waving the banner of moral relativism, and that brings us back to the issue “Fred” and I started our conversation with. Homosexual marriage. It is morally wrong, and the only thing that an approval of homosexual marriage will do, is to lend a governmental approval of the immoral sexual wants and desires of a select group of individuals. And if that approval is lent by the government, then how can they disapprove of any other immoral sexual wants or desires of any other group?

Moral relativism is the key to a Pandora's Box that once opened, cannot legislatively be closed. Ever.

Recommended Reading:
The seven fatal flaws of moral relativism
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/the-seven-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism-3/

Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/12/top-7-things-you-cant-do-as-moral.html

What is moral relativism?
https://carm.org/moral-relativism

What is moral relativism?
http://www.gotquestions.org/moral-relativism.html

A Frontal Assault on Christianity

4/22/2015

 
Picture
(Photo courtesy of MEMRI JTTM)
From Gary Randall's Faith and Freedom Blog:

New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible
by Gary Randall, Thursday, April 16, 2015

The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."

Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.

Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.

The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.

The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."

We've evolved.

The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.

The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.

Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.

Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."

"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."

In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.

He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."

Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."

Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBT people."

Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another “evangelical” author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."

"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"

Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.

Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."

The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.



To continue reading the entire article by Gary Randall, and I would encourage you to do so, please click here: http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2015/04/new-york-times-on-bigotry-and-bible.html#.VTVY0PB709k

What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality?

4/17/2015

 
Picture
What Did Jesus Have To Say About Homosexuality?

Last night I had a very interesting discussion with an individual who, while professing to be a Christian, simply could not find anything immoral about same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, this is a common mindset among many in the church today. Glennon Doyle Melton writes in favor of same-sex marriage on her blog. She says, “For example: when a married Christian says that he loves gay people but can’t support marriage equality, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love. Because loving your neighbor as you love yourself, I think, must mean that you bestow every right you claim for yourself onto your neighbor. If you are free and you love your neighbor as yourself, you want your neighbor to be free, too. If you claim your right to be married, but deny it to your neighbor, then you are loving your neighbor just a little bit less than you love yourself.”

Upon reading her statement I did a double take, and I am sure you can imagine why. Following her logic I can say the same thing about any sin (and make no mistake, the Scripture clearly labels homosexuality as sin), such as say, murder. “When a married Christian says that he loves adulterers but can’t support adultery, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love.” Or how about Child Molestation? “When a married Christian says that he loves child molestors but can’t support child molestation, it strikes me as an incomplete kind of love.”Or maybe murder? I'm sure you get the point. As can be seen, Mrs. Melton's logic is severely flawed.

But can't the same be said of any line of reasoning that allows, condones, promotes or encourages any sin? Of course it can, and I am discovering that the various arguments being presented from so-called Christians are all as equally flawed. One of the most common of these arguments is, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so He obviously did not condemn it. The simplest line of reasoning against this fallacy can be found on the Stand to Reason blog, where Melinda Penner writes that since Jesus is God, and all of Scripture is God-Breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), then obviously anything the Bible has to say about homosexuality comes from Jesus. You can read her article here: What Jesus Said about Homosexuality.

While Miss Penner's reasoning could be called simple, it is also quite profound on many levels, and it is also quite true. I do have to say that left on its own, however, it leaves the door wide open for many counter arguments (all faulty in the light of a clear understanding of Scripture), and I wish she had addressed them in her blog article. They are, however, addressed in the comments section, so be sure to read that as well.

There is another article that addresses this subject posted on the Eternity Matters blog, titled What Jesus didn't say?. It is a more in-depth article on this subject, and provides a more well-rounded treatment of the subject. I highly recommend reading both articles.

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) once said, “Hell's next attack will be on that doctrine on which all religion and all morality are based, the existence of a personal, infinite, and eternal God. That effort will be accompanied by a mighty effort to sweep away the standards of Christian purity.” In light of the state of morality in America (and the world) today, I would say Mr. Chesterton's words were prophetic, and coming true today.
<<Previous
    Picture

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    July 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    5 Solas
    95 Theses
    Aaron Thompson
    Abuse
    Agnosticism
    Alistair Begg
    Alleged Contradictions
    Amber Guyger
    A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
    Angelic Revelations
    Angels
    Anne Graham Lotz
    An Open Letter To My Family And Friends
    Anti-Christian
    Antifa
    Antinomianism
    Antiochian Orthodox
    Apocrypha
    Apologetics
    Apostasy
    Archibald Brown
    Armianism
    Arminian
    Atheism
    Atheist Arguments
    A.W. Pink
    Benjamin Knight
    Benjamin Naim
    Ben The Baptist
    Bethel Music
    Bible
    Bible Believer's Baptist Church
    Bible Contradictions
    Biblical Archaeology
    Biblical Interpretation
    Biblical Marriage
    Blasphemy
    Book Of Life
    Botham Jean
    Brandt Jean
    Calvinism
    Cannibalism
    Causa Finitum
    Challenge For Christians
    Charles Haddon Spurgeon
    Christianity
    Christian Life
    Christian Living
    Christian Love
    Church
    Church Of Almighty God
    Contemporary Christian Music
    Covid
    Covid 19
    Creeds
    Cults
    Death By Atheism
    Death By War
    Decisional Regeneration
    Denialism
    Dennis Grutzmacher
    Doctrines Of Demons
    Doctrines Of Grace
    Donald Trump
    Double Imputation
    Doubting
    Easter
    Eastern Lightning
    Edmund Sears
    Election 2016
    Elevation Music
    Ephesians 2:8 9
    Ephesians 2:8-9
    Erin M Harding
    Evangelizing
    Fall Of America
    False Christianity
    False Christians
    False Teachers
    Fatima
    FBQ's
    Fellowship With God
    Five Solas
    Free Ebook
    Friday Night Lectures
    Gaslighting
    Gay
    Genocide
    Gospel
    Hell
    Heresy
    Hermeneutics
    Hillsong Music
    Holiness
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    Husband Duties
    Hymns
    Idolatry
    Imputation
    Insanity
    Irresistible Grace
    Islam
    I Support Abuse Survivors
    Jackie Hill Perry
    James E Adams
    JC Ryle
    Jesus Culture
    John Calvin
    John MacArthur
    Jonathan Edwards
    Josh Buice
    Joshua Chavez
    Joy Reid
    Judging
    Julie Roys
    Justification
    Kenosis
    Kenotic
    Know Your Heresies
    Latter-Day Saints
    LDS Church
    Lesbian
    LGBT
    Liberalism
    Ligioner Ministries
    Ligonier Articles
    Limited Atonement
    Mark Batterson
    Martin Luther
    Martyn Lloyd-Jones
    Mary Worship
    Me Too
    Michael Servetus
    Mike Ratliff
    Monergism
    Moral Relativism
    Mormonism
    Mormons
    Mysticism
    Nancy Demoss Wogemuth
    Nauman Masih
    New IFB
    Old Testament
    Original Sin
    Penal Substitutionary Atonement
    Persecution
    Perseverance Of The Saints
    Philadelphia Church Of God
    Pinecreek Doug
    Politics
    Pope Francis
    Prayer Circles
    Presidential Election
    Protestant
    Protestantism
    Pseudo-Christian
    Pseudo Christianity
    Pseudo-Christianity
    Race
    Racialism
    Racism
    Ravi Zacharias
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reformed Theology
    Refuting The Bible
    Regeneration
    Religious Expression
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act
    Religious Pluralism
    Religious Wars
    Responding To Atheist Arguments
    Resurrection
    Resurrection Of Jesus
    Revoice
    Revoice Conference
    RFRA
    Roman Catholic
    Roman Catholic Church
    Roman Catholic False Teachings
    Roman Catholicism
    Romans 1 28 To 32
    Salvation
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saturday Night Movies
    Scripture Twisting
    Seattle Washington
    Servus Christi
    Sin
    Southern Gospel
    Sovereignty Of God
    Steven Anderson
    Steven Furtick
    Sunday Morning Sermons
    Sure Foundation Baptist Church
    Swedenborgianism
    Synergism
    The Bible
    The Cathedrals
    The Christian Creed
    The Gospel
    The Heart
    Theology
    The Trinity
    Ticky Tok Toddy Harding
    Todd Ferguson
    Tolerance
    Tom Ascol
    Tom Buck
    Total Depravity
    Traits Of A Debased Mind
    Trantifa
    Trinity
    True Christianity
    True Christians
    TULIP
    Unconditional Election
    Unitarianism
    United Methodist Church
    Vaccine
    Voting
    Waldens
    Website Updates
    What Is A Christian
    What's The Difference
    Wheat And Tares
    William Lane Craig
    Wolf Alert
    Women Pastors


    Click here to read about the Persecution of Christians in America.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.