The “Christian” Left gets Sodom wrong — twice!

The “Christian” Left likes to ignore passages like Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2 and pretend that the “sin of Sodom” was just being inhospitable — as if God is in the habit of obliterating two cities because of bad manners.  They cherry-pick a passage in Ezekiel that they think proves their point.  They like the first verse but ignore the “abomination” reference in the second.

Ezekiel 16:49–50 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

But it gets worse.  As Jude 7 notes,  not only were their sins homosexual in nature (“unnatural desire”) but the punishment represented an eternal punishment, something the “Christian” Left explicitly denies.

Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Also see 2 Peter 2:6–10:

. . .if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones . . .

Once again they seem incapable of getting even the simplest concepts right.  Even when the twist scripture to prove or ignore a point, they don’t realize the logical consequences of their arguments.  I pray that when they are abusing the Bible that God removes the scales from their eyes and opens their hearts and minds to the truth of his word.

 

Responding to the pro-abortion “Christian” Left

Everything you need to respond to the “Christian” Left pro-abortion arguments

The “Christian” Left, which mocks the Bible every chance they get and denies its inspiration, gets all scriptural when they think they can twist it to justify something they love, like abortion.

The pro-abortion extremist ghouls at the “Christian” Left post articles like this to pretend that abortions are acceptable at any time for any reason until the first breath is taken. So they support infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”) even though most pro-choicers aren’t even that extreme!

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being.

That’s not what all those pesky embryology textbooks say. Then again, why would I expect anti-science religious zealots like the “Christian” Left to understand science?

And their exegesis is not only horrifically wrong but hypocritical.

According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath. After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

So they take the rather unique creation of the first man and assume that is normative for the billions of people made since? Satan will do anything to rationalize child-killing in the womb, including have his followers say stupid things like that.

And remember, this is the Bible-mocking “Christian” Left saying this. Since when do they believe in a literal Adam? Since never! They are taking text they don’t believe and twisting it to rationalize abortion. Because that’s the kind of things fake Christians do.

Let’s look at one of their most ridiculous statements:

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.

Hmmm . . . I guess they’ve never read Luke 1:41.

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

These moral freaks would have supported an abortion for John the Baptist, Jesus, or anyone else, ever.

Then they trot out their fallacious reading on Exodus 21 to support unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions.

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22–25, ESV)

The short version is that the key word of the passage is often not translated well and says “miscarriage” instead of “children come out.” It you study the original Hebrew it becomes very clear that Moses did not mean that if the child is killed that the penalty is less severe.

More here, with a listing of all the errors pro-aborts make with this passage.

Then they go to Numbers 5, even though the passage doesn’t even say the woman was pregnant.  It shows how desperate they are — as if they actually cared about what the Book of Numbers said.  They are welcome to show me in the Book of Numbers where it says the woman is pregnant (not there). Then they could show where she has an abortion (not there). Then they could show where God taking a life means that we can also take lives in the another fashion for any reason, including those of our own children (not there).  More here.

These wolves in sheep’s clothing don’t even believe all of the Gospels, let alone the rest of the New Testament, but they want you to believe that they take Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, etc. literally.  I’m skeptical.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.

Of course they work in that deadly and fallacious sound bite.  That’s like saying, “Don’t like slavery?  Don’t have a slave!  Don’t like murder outside the womb?  Don’t murder anyone!”  And so on.

But don’t judge others who may be in terrible circumstances that you can’t possibly understand.

Abortion conditions may be psychologically complex, but they aren’t morally complex.  They wouldn’t justify killing a toddler, so why do they justify killing the same person in the womb?

When women don’t have personal choice over their own reproductive decisions they end up butchered in back alley abortions or thrown in jail for having a miscarriage.

They use the fallacious “reproductive decisions” language.  “Reproductive decisions/freedom/choice/rights/health/etc.” are false, Orwellian, anti-scientific terms. They apply to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.

And the scare tactics about back-alley abortions are illegitimate.  Remember that these were the people supporting the media embargo on Kermit Gosnell.  They do not care about women getting hurt as they are killing their children.

And their “thrown in jail for a miscarriage” bit is ridiculous.  Because that happened all the time pre-Roe v Wade, right?  More scare tactics.

Certain types of birth control are outlawed when a fertilized egg is classified as a “person” as well.

Good! Because we are human persons from conception.

Those who say, “If you’re a Christian, you have to be against abortion, and therefore you must vote republican,” are simply reciting talking points from false teachers.

That’s so amusing when people like Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie call other people false teachers.

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it.  He said nothing.

It wouldn’t be a “Christian” Left pro-abortion piece without the argument from silence.  The argument that Jesus never said anything about abortion (or homosexual behavior, gay-bashing, pedophilia, etc.) fails on many levels. If a church leader uses it you can be confident that he or she is ignorant and/or malicious.  Short version: Yes, He did say something about it, but the theological Left ignores or distorts it as they do with many things about Jesus and his teachings.

Medium version
—————————
Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy.

Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture.

Note how Jesus defeats Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting arguments in one simple passage. No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics. Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter.

The “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were.

He emphasized many other important issues that these Leftist theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.).

He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.).

He didn’t specifically mention rape, child abuse, pedophilia, bestiality and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them.

Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews. They actually thought children were a blessing and they had laws against homosexual behavior.

And the Gospels never claimed to include everything He said. John specifically notes that the whole world couldn’t hold it all! (John 21:25).

And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing abortion or homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

Long version.

—–

Do not follow the “Christian” Left.  They mock the essentials of the faith at every turn and they promote a culture of death and sexual immorality.  They will twist scripture, use fallacious fear tactics, lie and anything else they have to do to justify their views.  They note on their website that they “speak for those with no voice,” but they are hypocritical pro-abortion extremists.  They don’t love God or their neighbors in the womb.

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” and abortion have nearly identical views to the world. It shows who their real father is.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

——

And here’s an analysis of one of their Facebook posts:

They get so unhinged when cheer leading for abortion.  It is ghoulish.  They are like the blind men of Sodom, groping for the door after they lost their sight.

Conservative “Christian” fundamentalists honestly believe in their own minds that the end to any political debate with a Christian progressive, no matter the issue, is “Oh yeah!? Well you guys advocate killing babies!” After they make that pronouncement it’s all over for them.

So they start with a straw-man argument, as usual — as if they really know the minds of believers. We don’t think our proper views on abortion ends every debate. It is merely one of countless things they get wrong. They could have said the same thing about us thinking it is “all over” when they deny the deity of Christ, or deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation, or when they mock the Bible, or when they ask Caesar to redistribute wealth and call it charity on their part, and so on.

A fetus isn’t a person. It’s a fetus. It becomes a person when it’s BORN! Dah! People don’t celebrate their Conception Day. They celebrate their BIRTHday. People don’t buy LIFE Insurance for a fetus.

And that’s the kind of pro-abortion reasoning you get from the anti-science “Christian” Left. It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.

Note how their pro-abortion reasoning supports infanticide (aka “partial-birth abortion”). What they leave out in their anti-science screed is that the fetus is a human being. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development. Always made in the image of God and worthy of protection.

I’m almost embarrassed for them because of the silly examples they use to deny the personhood of the unborn. The size, level of development, location and degree of dependency do not dictate whether humans are persons.  Using their logic, since most people don’t buy life insurance for infants then it is OK to kill them, too.

Worse yet for the “Christian” Left: The laws of 2/3 our states consider the unborn persons — except when mommy is paying for the killing.

Abortion is a made up issue that isn’t in the Bible.

Oh, the argument from silence! It wouldn’t be a pro-abortion cheer leading session without that. Using their logic, child abuse, wife-beating, gay-bashing, and more are OK because they are specifically in the Bible.

But wait, it gets worse for them.  Remember, they insist that abortion is OK because of how they (mis-)interpret Numbers 5.  So they say it is in the Bible when they want to advance their pro-abortion cause but deny it is there when we note it is simply another form of murder.

This issue was created in the early 80’s as a political ploy to deceive Christians to think they had to vote republican.

Yeah, the Hippocratic Oath was written in the early 80’s as a political ploy. No, wait, that’s not right — it was written hundreds of years B.C. and said, “Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.”

Even Planned Parenthood, part of the vast right-wing conspiracy was anti-abortion in the 60’s (then they figured out how profitable it was).

And early church fathers and those throughout the century were strongly anti-abortion.  Here are a few quotes from early church leaders on abortion. I’m sure the pacifists quote these left and right in their pro-life efforts:

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it . . . Athenagoras of Athens, circa 180 A.D. from A Plea For The Christians

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated. (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; second century)

Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. (The Didache 2.2; second century catechism for young Christian converts)

It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder. (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4; second century)

Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons. (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)

Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century).

Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century).

The early church fathers Origen, Cyprian and Chrysostom likewise condemned abortion as the killing of a child.

And even the “Christian” Left new BFF, Pope Francis, leads a religious organization that has always been anti-abortion.

What shameless liars the “Christian” Left are!  They have lots of bad reasons to be pro-abortion, but their “Republicans made it up in the 80’s” lie is the worst of all.  But that’s no surprise, given that their leader is the father of lies.

A whole lot of needless human suffering has been propagated as a result of that lie.

Oh, the morbid irony of them pretending to care about human suffer when they champion this and this.

The republican platform is an Ayn Rand selfish, self-centered, renounce your neighbor ideology. It is the antithesis of everything Jesus taught. Thank God people are finally waking up to this fact as well.

What a perfectly ironic and amusing close for their screed.  Ayn Rand was pro-abortion, just like them!

With respect to her pro-abortion views, she was indeed the antithesis of everything Jesus taught — just like they are!

Catholics treat Mary as if she is the Holy Spirit

And that is a huge error.

I am used to seeing Catholics use arguments for praying to Mary and other “saints” to ask them to pray to God for us.  I think those are un-biblical and anti-biblical for many reasons.  But a friend put a meme on my Facebook page with this that had an even more obvious error:

POPE JOHN PAUL II’S PRAYER TO OUR LADY OF LOURDES
( This prayer was said during the Holy Father’s August 15, 2004 visit to Lourdes, France. The Pope asked her among other things to “be our guide along the paths of the world.”)

Hail Mary, poor and humble Woman, Blessed by the Most High! Virgin of hope, dawn of a new era, We join in your song of praise, to celebrate the Lord’s mercy, to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and the full liberation of humanity.

Hail Mary, lowly handmaid of the Lord, Glorious Mother of Christ! Faithful Virgin, holy dwelling-place of the Word, Teach us to persevere in listening to the Word, and to be docile to the voice of the Spirit, attentive to his promptings in the depths of our conscience and to his manifestations in the events of history.

Hail Mary, Woman of sorrows, Mother of the living! Virgin spouse beneath the Cross, the new Eve, Be our guide along the paths of the world. Teach us to experience and to spread the love of Christ, to stand with you before the innumerable crosses on which your Son is still crucified.

Hail Mary, woman of faith, First of the disciples! Virgin Mother of the Church, help us always to account for the hope that is in us, with trust in human goodness and the Father’s love. Teach us to build up the world beginning from within: in the depths of silence and prayer, in the joy of fraternal love, in the unique fruitfulness of the Cross.

Holy Mary, Mother of believers, Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us. Amen.

Carefully note these phrases: “Teach us . . .Be our guide . . .help us . . .Teach us . . . ” These are all roles of the Holy Spirit, not Mary. This prayer is blasphemous and an indictment of the Mariolatry of the Roman Catholic Church.  Their other arguments for praying to the dead can be thoroughly refuted as well (see Satan knows where your lost keys are), but this prayer by a Pope alone shows how wrong they are on this topic.

If you ascribe any roles of the Trinity to anyone other the Father, Son or Holy Spirit, it is un-Christian.

P.S. As Neil Kirkland noted in the comments, Muslims make a similar error with Mary, thinking she is part of the Trinity instead of the Holy Spirit.

The Case for Idolatry and more . . .

This has gotten some well-deserved attention for showing how to use pro-LGBTQX reasoning to justify idolatry (as a parody, of course).  Via The Case for Idolatry: Why Evangelical Christians Can Worship Idols | Blog | Think Theology.  You may want to read it all.

[I really hope it’s obvious that this is a parody, but if not: it is.]

For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to worship idols. It’s not that my parents raised me that way, because they didn’t; I was brought up in a loving, secure, Christian home. But from childhood until today, my heart has been drawn to idolatry. In fact, if I’m honest, one of the defining features of my identity has been my desire to put something else – popularity, money, influence, sex, success – in place of God.

I did something similar years ago, though not as well written or publicized, where I took a look at 1 Corinthians 5 via a pro-gay theology lens.  As you’d expect, it made no sense.  The pro-gay theology arguments are fallacious but tempting for those with itching ears to believe.

Original

People who hold to pro-gay theology* (i.e., God doesn’t consider it a sin and that he approves of “same-sex marriage”) use all sorts of fallacious arguments to make their case.  In this post I am taking the pro-gay theological reasoning out for a test drive, so to speak, to see how it applies to other passages.  After all, if their principles are sound they should work in other situations as well.

You may be familiar with Leviticus 18:22 (Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable) and some of the improper interpretations of it. But I wondered how their reasoning would apply to a verse in the same passage, such as Leviticus 18:8 –Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. After all, the context of Leviticus 18 is abundantly clear because it starts and ends with the same admonitions: Don’t be like the pagan Canaanites and do the detestable things listed in the middle of the text, or you will be vomited out of the land like they were.  These were obviously not ceremonial laws just for the Israelites.

You can use any verse from Leviticus 18 to make the same points (bestiality, child sacrifice, etc.).  I chose this one because it happened to be addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.  Especially note how Paul chides the Corinthians for being proud and boastful about this a man sleeping with his father’s wife.  Read it once, then read it again and replace the descriptions of incest with homosexual behavior.  That is how I view the pro-gay theology community (especially the heterosexuals): Proud and boastful for ignoring God’s Word.

1 Corinthians 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Now let’s apply the various lines of pro-gay theological reasoning to Leviticus 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 5 and see how well they work. I realize that not all pro-gay theologians hold all these views.  I tried to convey their reasoning as accurately as possible.  Using their logic, we could conclude that:

  • Even if it is a sin, we are being so inclusive by keeping him as a member!  Look at us, being open-minded and tolerant!
  • Jesus didn’t specifically say not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife, so it couldn’t have been very important and probably wasn’t even a sin (the argument from silence).  We should err on the side of saying it isn’t a sin.  We ignore the fact that Jesus, as God, authored the Old Testament and that He fully supported it.
  • The man was born that way (i.e., with the desire to have sex with females).  It was his natural desire and function.
  • He and his father’s wife love each other!  Who are you to say that is wrong?  Gene Robinson, a Bishop in the Episcopal church, left his wife and kids so he could be with his gay lover.  Pro-gay theologians usually affirm and applaud this behavior.  Living up to marriage commitments made before God isn’t nearly as important as indulging your sexual preferences.
  • How do you know he and his father’s wife didn’t pray about it?  Maybe God gave them a personal revelation permitting them to have sex and/or get married.  That would make it acceptable.
  • Maybe the couple says that Jesus told them it was OK.  Who are you to argue with Jesus?
  • Leviticus 18:8 was a ceremonial law.  It was only for the Jews.  It obviously doesn’t apply to Gentiles.  If you eat shellfish then you obviously are a hypocrite if you don’t condone incest.
  • The Bible never actually uses the word incest.
  • There are only a few verses saying not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife [probably less than there are describing homosexual behavior as sinful].Therefore, how can we be sure about it?  And they are kinda obscure as well.
  • The man or the father’s wife was a temple prostitute or this was part of some pagan temple worship, and that is what made it wrong [even though the text doesn’t even hint at that].
  • Paul was an ignorant prude.  He didn’t understand sexual behavior or have the advantage of all the knowledge we do.  [This assumes that the Holy Spirit wasn’t inspiring his writings, of course].
  • You are just using the “ick” factor and saying “Eeewww” because a man having sex with his father’s wife seems gross to you.  There is really nothing wrong with it, though – you were just made differently.
  • Judge not, lest ye be judged.  Paul must be sinning here because he is clearly making moral judgments.  [Please ignore the fact that I’m judging Paul for judging and that I’ve taken Matthew 7:1-5 out of context].
  • You are just an incest-o-phobe.  You need therapy for your irrational hatred.  In fact, speech like that should be prohibited because it will incite violence against those who practice incest.
  • You just don’t love the man and his father’s wife!  If you did, you’d want them to be happy.  Hater!  Hate speech!
  • Other parts of the Bible portray God acting in ways that don’t appear to be in line with his moral laws, so they obviously aren’t really from him.  Therefore, Leviticus 18:8 may not be his Word either.  When in doubt, we should ignore Scripture, because God’s revelation to my heart trumps anything in the Bible.
  • Some parts of the Bible aren’t clear to us [even though this part is] so we can ignore it.

If that sounds like an unsound line of reasoning that’s because it is an unsound line of reasoning. These principles don’t work on the passages they are designed to dismiss, and they completely self-destruct when applied to other passages.  Pro-gay theology is flawed, sinful and destructive and should be abandoned by any Christians who hold those views.

Once again, note that:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.  God is perfectly holy, but He is also perfectly gracious and merciful and will forgive those who repent and believe in Jesus.  Hear the Good News:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic.  We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (“You just don’t love them,” etc.).

Love LGBTQ people, be friends with them and pray for them.  If they need to develop a friendship with you so they can see what normal relationships should look like, then do so.  But don’t encourage them to participate in sinful behavior.  If you do, then you are loving yourself, not them.

And remember, God catches his fish and then He cleans them.  You don’t have to convert their sexuality before sharing the Good News that God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

* There are the three commons ways pro-gay theologians make errors, namely by believing that:

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful.  However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable and the “new” sin is saying that homosexual behavior is sinful.

—–

The Pyromaniacs make some great points on this passage as well.

Jesus annihilates Darwinian evolution, oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” and same-sex parenting in just two verses

No true follower of him should disagree on any of those topics.  When the King of Kings and Lord of Lords speaks, you should pay close attention and trust him.

Matthew 19:4–5 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Churchgoers who  disagree have nearly identical views to the world. You should not follow them.

1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

The Book of Numbers and abortion

When teaching pro-life reasoning I often say in the Q&A that if someone can come up with a pro-abortion argument I haven’t heard then I’ll give them a quarter.  Well, recently I have seen an argument I hadn’t heard before (fortunately it was from a pro-abort on a blog and not a pro-lifer in the training class!).  I’ve seen this a couple places recently and it is transparently false if you just read the text.

Here is their argument.  Note that they don’t even believe the Bible is the word of God, they are just pretending that we are inconsistent if we aren’t pro-abortion.  And note that most of these have come from the “Christian” Left, not from atheists.

Jesus never mentioned abortion, although there are biblical references to the abortifacient herbs (Numbers) used by “wise” women. Additionally, if a woman’s fidelity was questioned, she would be forced to take the abortifacient herbs, and if she miscarried, it was assumed the fetus was conceived in sin. Gotta love the magical thinking behind that one, and another way to punish women for the acts of men.
So, you are correct, cherry-picking only those parts of the bible you agree with really is hypocrisy.

I addressed the “Jesus never mentioned” fallacy separately.  Here is my response to the Numbers claim:

I encourage you to re-read your pro-abortion Bible texts.  That passage doesn’t even say the woman was pregnant, yet pro-aborts use it to rationalize abortion!  It shows how desperate they are — as if they actually cared about what the Book of Numbers said.  See http://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html for more.

You are welcome to show me in the Book of Numbers where it says the woman is pregnant (not there). Then you could show where she has an abortion (not there). Then you could show where God taking a life means that we can also take lives in the another fashion for any reason, including those of our own children (not there).

—–

Bonus: While we’re talking about Numbers, let me share this from an earlier post plugging that book.  Read it!  (The Bible, not this. OK, read both.)

Apparently the Book of Numbers should really be called “In the Wilderness” (the meaning of Ba’midmar (במדבר), the Hebrew title). At least that’s what various sites on the Interwebs tell me.

So why the change? I’m not sure, but it is too bad they didn’t go with the more interesting sounding Hebrew version. For people who don’t read the Bible the current title makes it sound like it is all genealogies and such. Yes, it starts with a census, But consider these great passages that you miss out on if you don’t read it:

  • A test for adultery
  • The Nazirite vow
  • Elders appointed to aid Moses
  • The quail. Lots of quail.
  • Miriam and Aaron oppose Moses
  • Spies going into Canaan
  • The people’s rebellion
  • Korah’s rebellion (referred to in Jude)
  • Moses strikes the rock
  • The bronze serpent
  • Balaam and his donkey
  • Driving out the inhabitants
  • Cities of refuge
  • Much, much more!

Seriously, don’t miss the Book of Numbers — or anything else in the Bible. Like I’ve said, if/when you get to Heaven it will be awkward if you haven’t read every author’s books (“Oh, uh, hi Amos . . . look over there!” [Runs away again]).

Better yet, think about how you’ll tell Jesus all the excuses you had for not reading it regularly, and at some point reading it all. (Yeah, I’m fine using the carrot or the stick to get you to read more!)

Just read it. Every day.

Should you believe the Wintry Knight or Planned Parenthood on whether to have out-of-wedlock sex?

Go with WK, of course.  See How premarital sex damages a woman’s ability to be in a relationship.  Better yet, just see what the Bible has to say and then don’t be surprised when the logical consequences of fornication are destructive beyond measure.

Then again, via Planned Parenthood Tells Teens Nothing Wrong With Multiple Sex Partners:

Alex the “expert,” pronounced through Planned Parenthood’s Tumblr: “Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”

And you can totally trust Planned Parenthood.  I mean, just because they kill babies for a living, systematically hide rape, incest and sex trafficking, encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, would rather destroy a breast cancer charity than part ways amicably, commit Medicaid fraud, teach kids the joys of BDSM, and so much more, they are still worthy of receiving hundreds of millions of $ in taxpayer funds, right?