Roundup

Free PowerPoint slides on apologetics.

—

Department of Defense states that it will punish Christians for evangelizing — And make no mistake, they will have incredibly loose definitions of “evangelizing.”  These radical changes to our freedoms of religion and speech are coming like a freight train.  If you are just a social Christian you should probably save yourself some trouble and get out now.

More ridiculous actions: Runner points to God in gratitude and team gets disqualified.

—

Massive Use of Food Stamps by Illegal Aliens – Not surprising.  Just the mere talk of amnesty has a dramatic impact on the influx of illegal aliens.

—

Good news! Liberty University offers scholarship to persecuted Eagle Scout – He is still being charged with a felony for the simple “mistake” of exercising his constitutional rights.

—

I hope your kids and grandkids survived Beat Up A White Kid Day. What, the mainstream media didn’t tell you about that?

—

How the LGBTQ leaders talk when they think no one is listening (Hat tip: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality):

1. Monogamy is only an illusion, there is no such thing, and it is good that monogamy does not exist.
2. There is no problem with having 3, 4, or 5 legal parents for a child.
3. Marriage is oppression
4. Marriage is not a life long relationship
5. Marriage is inadequate and needs to be redefined
6. Fidelity needs to be redefined
7. Sex is more interesting than marriage
8. There is a need to separate the ideas of sexuality and intimacy
9. Commitment should not be equated with monogamy
10. Marriage should not exist
11. The institution of marriage will change with the advent of homosexual “marriage”

—

“Gun Control” Was Going On Long Before Gunpowder – Far too many people are ignorant of history and the concept of original sin, so they carelessly give up freedoms that people shed blood to obtain.

—

Ew, gross! NY Times, Washington Post reject ad showing Planned Parenthood sex ed images (explicit) – Think about that.  PP shows images to 10 year olds that these newspapers won’t show.  These baby-killing perverts should not only be de-funded but in jail.

—

Pew: 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support death penalty for leaving Islam – And those weren’t even the countries with the highest percentages.

—

Police say liberal student activist threatened herself with rape in Facebook hoax, framed conservatives – the title says it all.

Ms. Wanker-Simons can now join the long list of liberal hate hoaxers that includes among others:

• Olander Cuthrell
• Charlie Rogers
• Sharmeka Moffitt
• Joseph Baken
• Alexandra Pennell
• Aimee Whitchurch and Christel Conklin
• Quinn Matney
• Aubriana Banks
• Sarah Marshak
• Tawana Brawley
• Crystal Gail Mangum
• Kerri Dunn
• Leah Miller
• Ahmad Saad Nasim

—

Obama: Huh, “I’m not familiar” with Benghazi whistleblowers being threatened – This already looked pretty fishy, but when he pretends at a press conference that he hadn’t even heard about it you know there is something there.  Even if whistleblowers weren’t threatened, the odds are zero that Obama would not have been prepped for that question before a press conference.

—

Despite sequestration, Obama funds homosexual groups in other countries – Your tax dollars at work: Borrowing from China to spread a message of perversion.  Oh, and it is a higher priority than White House tours, air traffic employees, etc.

—

Consistency: You’re doing’ it wrong.

How would the Corinthians respond to Paul if they applied pro-gay reasoning?

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:

• 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.

Roundup

Good news: Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead – it isn’t just that I love the “minimal facts” argument for explaining why Christianity is true and supportable by facts and logic, this article was actually in the Washington Post.  Hopefully it got lots of people to reconsider matters of eternal importance.

Professor Gary Habermas had the following piece in the Washington Post (of all places).  It’s not often that a politically-left leaning media outlet allows content which shines positive light onto Christianity.

(Washington Post) – I will assume nothing special about the New Testament writings whatsoever. I will use only the historical information that is accepted as historical by virtually all scholars who have studied this material today-no matter how skeptical or liberal they are. That means, for example, that I will only cite New Testament passages, ones that pass the customary skeptical standards and are recognized as such. Using only these “minimal facts,” I will still maintain that Jesus’ resurrection is the most likely explanation for what we know.

[...]

(1) Most scholars agree that Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty shortly afterwards. With almost two dozen reasons favoring this report alone, what best explains this? Other hypotheses do not account for all the data.

(2) Many eyewitnesses assert that they saw the risen Jesus, both individually and in groups. Even apart from the Gospels, we can establish this totally from just two passages in Paul’s “undisputed writings”:

–Paul told the Corinthians that he had received the Gospel resurrection report from others (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).

–The consensus critical view is that Paul probably obtained this material in Jerusalem, when he visited the eyewitness apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:18-24).

–Paul returned to Jerusalem 14 years later and specifically checked out the nature of the Gospel message, again with eyewitnesses Peter, James, and now John (Galatians 2:1-10).

–All the apostles agreed that Jesus appeared to them after his death (1 Corinthians 15:11).

—

Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions – this is a pithy yet thorough list.  You mainly need the first three.

1. What’s love got to do with it?

Nothing.  Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction.  Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage.  Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples.  But not the state.

2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?

First, to recognize the union that produces the state’s citizens.  Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together.  That’s all, folks.  Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and “love and stability” (not a function of state involvement).

3.  Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?

It’s thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health.  Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the “fallacy of composition“: inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.  Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs — whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish.  That’s the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.

And here’s a great summary:

It violates the rights of children by serving to deprive them deliberately of biological parents.  It violates everybody’s civil right to religious freedom by setting up a collision course in which conscience protections will be trumped by a nonsensical legal definition of marriage.  It violates our freedom of association by removing the buffer zone of family (and all mediating institutions) that insulate all individuals in society from abuses of state power.  It violates freedom of expression by requiring Orwellian Newspeak of everyone, especially those accused of hate for objecting to same-sex marriage.

In the end, the primary beneficiary of this social experiment is a tyrannical minority hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives and eventually dictating all of our personal relationships.

—

From the “This is a piece from the Onion, right?” category, Hiring Lifeguards Who Can’t Swim in the Name of Diversity:

More than 90 percent of the students at Alhambra High are black, Latino or Asian. On a recruiting effort there over the winter, the city’s Melissa Boyle tells students she’s not looking for strong swimmers. Like many under-resourced schools, Alhambra doesn’t have a swim team.

“We will work with you in your swimming abilities,” Boyle says.

—

Vandalism of pro-life display at The Ohio State University:

Pretty bizarre.  So she is apparently only for abortions by mothers who are poor or on drugs and she thinks middle class and above drug-free people shouldn’t be able to have abortions.  That’s an interesting branch of fiscal conservatism!  My guess is that she’s really pro-abortion all the way, including taxpayer-funded abortions without restriction, but she’s just posing as caring for the poor.

—

‘Billions and Billions and Billions’: Biden Has No Comment on Fisker Failure – Just one more reason we need to let the free market pick the winners and losers.

“This is seed money that will return back to the American consumer in billions and billions and billions of dollars of good new jobs.”
– Joe Biden, Oct. 27, 2009

“With the help of UAW lobbying efforts for advanced vehicle manufacturing and federal dollars, the plant will become a production facility for Fisker Automotive, a new American car company that plans to produce 100,000 electric hybrid vehicles per year by 2014.
“GM’s former Wilmington [Delaware] assembly plant was selected for its primary global production facility based on its size, production capacity, access to shipping ports and rail lines, and skilled workforce.”
– United Auto Workers, February 2010

“Once again, the American public lost when the Obama administration attempted to pick ‘winners and losers’ in the free market. Today the electric car company Fisker Automotive, which received nearly $200 million in taxpayer money, is laying off three-fourths of its U.S. workers.”
– Sarah Palin, April 5, 2013

—

I started to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire based on the recommendation of the Bumbling Genius.  But after the most excellent summary on Winging It maybe I don’t need to . . .

In Volume 1, Chapter 9, Gibbon describes for us what he calls “barbarians”. What makes a “barbarian”? He starts with the premise that they are not masters of letters. Without a firm grasp on the written word, he argues, they cannot learn and pass that learning on to subsequent generations. Written communication is key. And I look at the texting and facebooking and Twitter stuff that today’s younger generation is using and ask myself, “Do they have a firm grasp on the written word?” The number of times I see their own generation ask, “What are you talking about?” suggests that they don’t. But he goes on with a very interesting next characteristic. He says that barbarians are lazy and yet energetic. Huh? Well, he says, they aren’t really interested in doing any industrious work, but they are inexhaustible in their efforts to find the next big sensation. They lived for big experiences. You know, like extreme sports. Oh, wait, no, that’s our time. Oh, wait … could it be that we are headed toward being barbarians in Gibbon’s view?

Gibbon argues that Rome fell for a few basic reasons. First, they were strong as long as they had wars to fight and places to conquer and enemies to subdue. They got soft when they got rich and comfortable. Gibbon argues that, just as humans live under a “no pain, no gain” sentence, so also do civilizations. Second, in their rich and comfortable decline, they experienced moral decline. They indulged every whim, outsourced their work to other places (yes, that’s one of his observations), surrendered any sense of civic virtue, and pursued pleasure as the ultimate good. Now if that doesn’t describe America, I don’t know what does.

—

Ben Carson: White Liberals Are Pretty Darned Racist – Yep.  Get back on the plantation!  If you don’t agree with the White Liberals then you are obviously an Uncle Tom.  Haven’t you seen how well our policies have worked out in Detroit?

(Mediaite) On his radio show last night, Mark Levin had on newfound conservative “hero” Dr. Ben Carson to discuss all the lashings he’s received from the “left-wing media” over his views on gay marriage and religion. While discussing his being a black conservative, Carson told Levin that, in his experience, white liberals are the “most racist people there are.”

“They need to shut me up, they need to delegitimize me,” Carson told the radio host while explaining why he believes the media has scorned him for lumping homosexuality in with unsavory sexual acts like bestiality and pedophilia.

Levin added that the doctor has been attacked by “white liberals” because he is a black conservative, to which Carson replied: “They are the most racist people there are. Because they put you in a little category, a little box. You have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?”

—

They forgot to mention “racists.”

—

—

—

I grew up thinking the entire world called the grass between the sidewalk and the street the “devilstrip.” Apparently this term was unique to the NE Ohio area and especially Akron.

Uh, thanks but no thanks

In an obvious sp*m email to random bloggers, a man named Joseph invited me to link to a list of the top 100 “marriage equality” blogs on his gay dating site.  Here is my response.  It also goes out to the people on Facebook with the red equal sign pictures and anyone else who abuses words like equality.  Remember, the warnings in Romans 1 aren’t just for those who commit the sins listed there, but for those that give approval to those who practice them.

And remember to point out that even if their lobby wasn’t wrong on both “marriage equality” and adoption by homosexuals, they can’t put forth both arguments.  If gender is absolutely paramount for sexual relationships, how can it be completely irrelevant for parenting?

And here’s a list of things to mention to people who insist that “same-sex marriage” won’t hurt you.

—–

Joseph,

I’ll be glad to link to your site if you’ll make my blog (www.4simpsons.wordpress.com) one of your top 100 blogs. But I don’t think you’ll want to do that, because I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I know many gays and lesbians and am friendly and kind to them all. I would never condone harm to LGBTQ people. I am against bullying of all kinds. And if you have issues such as hospital visitation or estate planning I would support separate solutions for those (i.e., you should be able to have anyone you like visit you in the hospital, and estate taxes are ghoulish — the government should never profit from your death).

Having said all that, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron (“the same-sex union of a man and a woman”).

That isn’t unkind or hateful to say, it is the truth. Words mean things. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.

I realize the underlying desire of LGBTQ to feel affirmed and to silence any criticism of their lifestyles, but that is not a mature reaction.

Again, you are welcome to your relationships. You can get “married” in all sorts of false-teaching, anti-biblical “churches.” You can set up house together. I will never bother to get in the way of your lives.

But there is simply no reason for the government to get involved in your relationships. And government recognition of same-sex unions inevitably — and by design — leads to a loss of free speech and religious freedom and results in young children being taught things that are wrong.

You probably noted that the response above was free of religious views, which was by design. We don’t need religious arguments to explain why the government need not sanction same-sex unions. But out of kindness I should point out that there is a God who clearly and thoroughly revealed himself in the Bible. He is sovereign over all. He designed marriage and the ideal is one man and one woman, for life. Yes, heterosexuals break those rules too, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all the rules. Everyone has rebelled against God and his created order but they can be forgiven if they repent and trust in Jesus. I highly encourage you to consider that. You don’t want to spend an eternity in Hell regretting that you spent this life in active rebellion against your creator. There is a better way.

Problems with pro-gay theology

Introduction

This post is long, but I think it is worthwhile and hope you read it all.  I like to run it every couple of years.

Many churches today are being torn apart by false teachings about human sexuality, so we can’t ignore this topic.  I am continuously disappointed that so many Christians who don’t get educated on this topic and stand up for the truth.  In addition, the rapid and radical changes in public schools are a serious issue and hate speech laws and activist judges are a blatant attempt to shut down debate and curtail religious freedoms.  Barely a week goes by without hearing about a business owner forced to cater to gay couples (e.g., bed-and-breakfasts, wedding photographers), LGBTQ indoctrination in elementary schools, religious organizations forced to hire LGBTQ people, people losing jobs for saying that skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not, laws being proposed that will make it a crime to criticize homosexual behavior, and so on.

Many people who hold the orthodox Christian view would love to move on to other issues, but the problem is that the pro-gay theologians aren’t giving up.  Therefore, we need to stand firm and do a better job of educating those in the middle ground.

While this issue isn’t an essential of the faith, such as Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity for salvation, those who take the pro-gay theology view typically have to deny the essential of the authority of scripture to arrive at their conclusions.  And that is a dangerous thing.

The general Biblical ignorance of many Christians on this topic isn’t helping things.  I know of people who have gone to church their whole lives and have been in multiple Bible studies but still ask questions like, “Does the New Testament say anything about homosexual behavior?”  (Short answer: Yes.)  And it goes downhill from there.

Before I dive in, let me state that while I firmly believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, I do not think it is something we should grandstand on.  We all have temptations and stumble and fall at times.  Romans 1 explains in no uncertain terms that homosexual behavior is an affront to God, but it also lists greed, gossip, deceit and other things as serious sins (anyone squirming yet?).

And we should act as suggested by a believer I am friends with who is tempted by same-sex attractions: Pray for them and be their friends.

Do homosexuals have a legitimate complaint when they point out how many Christians are softer on divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex than they are on homosexual behavior?  Sometimes, yes, although it should be noted that those aren’t being forced down our throats as the others are.  No one is trying to make it illegal to criticize those topics.  Grandstanding on sins that aren’t a temptation for us and downplaying or ignoring sins that are a temptation is not a Christian thing to do.  But the lesson is to hold consistent Biblical views on all sins, not to water things down more.  We need to raise the bar back up on all these sins because they have huge consequences and, more importantly, because that is in line with what the Bible says.

But we shouldn’t call evil good and good evil.  I support the Methodist position on homosexuality, which regards the behavior as sinful but the people as having worth.  (Sadly, I left the Methodist in large part due to their lack of adherence to their own positions!)  I think it should be illegal to abort babies just because they might be homosexual (Ironically, that position puts me at odds with many liberals whose support for abortion is such that they think it should be legal under any circumstances).  I mention these things simply to pre-empt any nonsensical allegations that I am homophobic, a childish and false put-down designed to stifle debate.  The real homophobes are those who are so scared of being politically incorrect that they deny God, the Bible and common sense rather than state the obvious.

I also believe that homosexual behavior is a forgivable sin and can be overcome by the power of the Gospel.  When I meet gays I don’t view it as my job to change them.  I treat them like I would anyone else, developing relationships and hoping to be able to share the Gospel with them at some point.  The real work is the job of the Holy Spirit.

I was sharing the Gospel with a young man once who happened to be gay.  He was all over the place with his religious beliefs and questions.  At one point he asked, “Doesn’t the Bible say homosexual behavior is a sin?”  I could have glossed over it and said it was a debatable matter, but that wouldn’t have been true or loving.

I also could have spent an hour explaining all the verses around this topic, but that would have been overkill.  Instead I just confirmed that yes, the Bible does say it is a sin, despite how some try to twist it.  Then I just shifted back to the basic Gospel – namely, that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and Jesus is that Savior.  It was a great back-and-forth conversation on a lot of topics and I pray that it planted a seed and that the young man kept searching.

Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories.  They are all wrong, but for varying reasons.  Sometimes they overlap categories.

1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
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. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

—

Category 1: The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t.

Regarding the first view, many liberal theologians deny that part or all of the Bible is the Word of God.  Unlike those in the second view, these folks seem to understand that the Bible does describe homosexual behavior as being sinful.  They just dismiss those parts.

Some appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  If God wasn’t capable of inspiring all of the original writings of the Bible to be error-free, then why should we trust him to communicate with such clarity to these people regarding what is inspired and what isn’t?

The problem is that this view is very hard to reconcile with the 2,000 year tradition of the church and, more importantly, of the clear text of the Bible itself.  People are certainly entitled to hold that view, but it doesn’t seem logical for them to refer to themselves as Christians.

The Bible claims to speak directly for God roughly 3,000 times, so if someone believes that all of those are mistakes then why on earth would he take this faith seriously?  Why would he want to be a leader in the Christian church?

Remember that Jesus validated the law and the Prophets, among other parts of the Old Testament, right down to the last little mark.  He unapologetically referred to the most controversial parts, too – Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Christians should strive to view the Bible in the same way that He did.

Note that many of these church “leaders” are liars: They either lied at their ordination vows about believing the essentials of the faith, or they changed their minds later and didn’t do the honest thing and resign.  Their views are usually not just a little different than historic Christianity, they are the opposite.  I believe in religious freedom, so they are entitled to their beliefs.  I also believe in honesty: HP salesman shouldn’t endorse Dell products, and Christians shouldn’t promote non-Christian beliefs about the Bible.  If either one breaks those rules they should be quickly fired.

It is challenging to argue with those who hold the first view, because you tend to go in circles.  They claim to be Christian, which should mean we can refer to the Bible as a “final court of arbitration” of sorts.  But whenever you find a passage they don’t like they’ll claim it was written just by men, not God, or they’ll pull out the false argument that you are being a Biblical literalist.

They may say things like, “But Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior.”  That is called arguing from silence and it is poor reasoning.  Jesus inspired all scripture, 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 liberal 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, etc.), abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews, and He did mention Sodom and Gomorrah.This view is also part of the 2nd type of theological error noted above.

They may jump through hoops trying to dismiss the plain reading of verses like Leviticus 18:22 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”) yet gladly take other plain passages literally.  They may claim there were “only a few verses” but are quick to make all sorts of firm statements on other topics with less verses.  And just how many times does God have to clearly say something before we believe it?

They may try to dismiss passages like that by misreading other passages, such as saying that “God said that eating shellfish was an abomination, so why aren’t you opposed to that?”

To have a rational discussion on the verses referencing homosexuality you have to convince people in this group that the Bible is reliable and authoritative first.  And that may be impossible.

Here’s a sample quote from a person in this camp:

A 21st century [Martin] Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against “sodomy”-shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own-should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’

Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY, responding to the recent decsion by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to expel a minister who admitted to a physical homosexual relationship-a violation of the denominations “Visions and Expectations” statement.

She really tips her hand with the “worldview vastly different from our own” comment.  The worldview she is referring to is that of Middle East Jews and Christians a couple thousand years ago or more.  But she misses the obvious: The Biblical commands weren’t always the Jews’ worldview – they rebelled against that view over and over!  The worldview is God’s, and Ms. Stange is absolutely right that it is vastly different from hers.  She apparently doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God.  And if she ends up in Heaven I think Martin Luther will have a few things to clarify with her.

The verses aren’t “shaky,” and there are plenty showing God’s plan for human sexuality and his disapproval of homosexual behavior.  Some (but not all) people in this category may be predisposed to only consider verses that affirm their views, and they typically don’t have a problem drawing all sorts of conclusions from less clear passages.  Therefore, they won’t like these facts:

• 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.

—

Category 2: The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong.

The second view is generally better than the first (“the Bible is not the Word of God”) with respect to being able to guide people towards the truth, because you have a common authority to appeal to.

The problem with this view is that it is just plain incorrect.  As hard as pro-gay theologians try, the truth is that the Bible is overwhelmingly clear.  Pro-gay theologians are good at casting doubt about certain passages but they never seem to pay attention when someone points out how their reasoning is flawed.

Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture.  The heretic John Shelby Spong denies the authority of the Bible at every turn, he at least admits that:

The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that.

Luke Timothy Johnson, a more orthodox theologian said:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.

As noted previously, here is a summary of the Biblical view:

• 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.

I find those figures to be unambiguous and very compelling based on plain readings of the text and even more so when delving further into the context and the original languages.  I think it is important to consider all those points because some people try to dismiss the traditional Biblical view because it “only” has a few passages about homosexuality.  It only takes one clear passage to make a point, but there are many more than that in the Bible.  These folks also don’t seem to mind making broad conclusions on verses that really do just have one verse behind them.

I have written on a couple specific mistakes pro-gay theologians make regarding Leviticus 18 (“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”), another article on the shellfish argument and another on Romans 1.

There are many other resources dealing with particular verses.  Here’s a terrific outline on Romans 1 that explodes the myth that the real sin is acting outside your desires (as if anyone does that!).

My favorite resource is Responding to Pro-Gay Theology by Joe Dallas.  I highly encourage everyone to read it.  It is very thorough but readable.  I don’t have time to cover all the passages here but if people have questions on specific verses we can cover them in the comments section.

There are solid answers for any question you can come up with, provided people want to really discuss the issue.  I saw this commentary on an ex-ex-gay blog (i.e., someone who tried to leave the homosexual lifestyle and returned).  She is commenting on Mel White, a leading pro-gay theologian.

Mel White is a passionate and articulate man who makes it clear from the beginning of the workshop that he has absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the biblical passages on homosexuality. Over the years he has suffered a barrage of debates on the issue and he is thoroughly burnt out. He refuses to engage in the discussion any longer. Instead, he passes out a booklet he has written on the subject and tells us to read it. Then, he encourages us to refrain from discussing the Bible with conservative Christians because fundamentalists have no interest in sincere dialogue. Mel also encourages us not to engage in the debate for another reason. By having the conversation, we expose ourselves over and over again to the “lie” that homosexuality is wrong, and when heard repeatedly, “deep down inside you will wonder if they are right.”

That is a clever dodge on Mel’s part.  But I’ll be glad to have a sincere dialogue even if he won’t.

If you examine all the facts, I think you’ll find that the case is overwhelming: God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful and his ideal for marriage is one man and one woman.

So why do people twist the scriptures so blatantly? I generally don’t speculate on the motives of individuals, as only God knows their hearts. But I have seen some themes and evidence in various cases.

Some believe the lies out of ignorance or laziness. They may be sincere Christians who just haven’t fully examined the issue. There are issues I haven’t fully explored and may have the wrong views on, so we should approach things with humility.  We should do the hard work to understand important issues.

Some believe them out of political correctness. It is much easier to go with the views of the culture. Have they noticed the the liberal theologians came to the conclusion that abortion, homosexual behavior, easy divorce and fornication were acceptable just after the culture did?  What a coincidence.  They should remember 1 John 2:15-16: Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.

I won’t name specifics here, but I am aware of those in the pro-gay theology camp that pretend to be otherwise-orthodox Christians.  But if you follow their own blogs, for example, you discover how thoroughly fraudulent they are.  You need to watch out for those who use a veneer of Christianity to justify their preferences.  They desparately want everyone’s approval – even though it will still leave them unfulfilled – and they especially want the church’s approval — or at least its silence.

There is also the passive-aggressive stance where some confidently claim that the Bible does or doesn’t say something about homosexual behavior, then when you go to analyze the verses they “humbly” say they don’t know that much (as if the subject were just too complicated or it is so gray we just can’t reach a conclusion).

False teachers aren’t necessarily gay themselves.  They may have other motives for spreading their lies.  Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the church and Paul did as well.  What better way to accomplish this than to infiltrate the church and bring it down from the inside?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Of course, there are frauds at the other end of the spectrum as well, such as Ted Haggard, or hateful false teachers like Democrat Fred Phelps.  Those aren’t Biblical models, either.

Some people have a “revelation” about the lack of sinfulness of homosexuality when a loved one is involved. Perhaps this is due to new information and a fresh look at the Bible, but perhaps it is due to major league rationalization. It is similar to pro-life Christians who change their minds when their child is pregnant and encourage the destruction of their grandchildren. Did they really change their views on the morality of abortion based on new information, or did their fear of embarrassment and/or inconvenience trump their moral views?

Some people just want to believe the lies. It is a strong delusion. And Satan’s oldest trick is still used today: “Did God really say . . .?”  Hint: Yes.  Yes, He did.

—

Category 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.

This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

The third view attempts to affirm scripture but makes a major theological mistake afterwards.  Think about the premise: God is allegedly overturning a moral law and simultaneously making it immoral to quote the Bible.

One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.”  This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word.  However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.

Some people appear to believe in Leopard Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.  That is the first error above.  However, those in this third category appear to hold to Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

This category overlaps a bit with those who don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.

Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.”  She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.

Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

The problem is her poor Biblical analysis.  There are at least nine things wrong with this view:

1. The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church.  It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman.  That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
2. The visions were clear and emphatic.  Peter was given the vision three times.
3. Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
4. There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
5. This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it.  I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible.  It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason.  God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
6. This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law.  There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws.  In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.).  The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
7. The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with!  So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations?  Go figure.
8. If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal?  Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
9. The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.

And as noted above, even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture.  Again, Luke Timothy Johnson said:

I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.

There are simply no good reasons to believe that God is changing his moral laws (dropping those against homosexual behavior and adding those saying not to preach against it) and only informing selected people — as opposed to the Apostles and their direct followers — through revelation or “experience.”

—

Summary – Pro-gay theological principles in action

I have addressed 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.

Now 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.

We’ve addressed 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 here and here. 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 them for being proud and boastful about this man’s behavior.  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:

• 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 “yuck” 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.

Roundup

Dem Pol Explains Why Women Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Themselves From Rapists – Now that’s a war on women.  If a Republican would have said those things he would have been appropriately skewered.  Yet this guy is getting a pass.  Do they think women are capable of defending themselves and making choices or not?

—

How China Plans to Wipe Out House Churches – persecution appears to be getting even worse there.

—

From the I am not making this up category: Massachusetts Education Policy Mandates Allowing Boys in Girls’ Restrooms.  Yep, this is what “same-sex marriage” and political correctness will get you.  You wish the quotes in the article were part of some overdone parody, but they are real.

The Massachusetts Commissioner of Education has released an outline of its new school policy regarding gender equality, mandating that boys be allowed to use girls restrooms and locker rooms — and vice versa — if they contend that they prefer to identify with the opposite gender.

The 11-page document, written by Mitchell Chester, is stated to be in response to a gender identity law that was passed last July in the state.

“This guidance is intended to help school and district administrators take steps to create a culture in which transgender and gender nonconforming students feel safe, supported, and fully included, and to meet each school’s obligation to provide equal educational opportunities for all students, in compliance with G.L. c. 76, §5 and the state regulations,” it states.

As part of the outline, entitled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity, Chester explains that students need to be permitted to use whichever bathroom or locker room they wish. He states that as long as the child asserts that they would rather identify with the  opposite gender, they should have the access that they desire.

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” Chester states. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.’”

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius

—

Christian Arrested for Speaking Against Homosexuality – coming soon to a country near you.  What is even more ridiculous is that the debate hinges on whether he said something loudly or not, or in his sermon or not.  Sadly, that means they already lost the major battle.  It shouldn’t matter legally if he yelled it or not.  Speech is free or not.

 

A Christian man preaching in the street in Cumbria, England, was arrested by a homosexual police officer after he listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in the Bible. He was locked up for seven hours and charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress,” according to The Examiner.

Dale McAlpine, 42, said he has been preaching in his hometown of Cumbria for years. On April 20, he was handing out leaflets when a woman engaged him in a private debate. During the conversation, McAlpine said he believed homosexuality went against the Word of God. After the conversation, a police support community officer, who identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police, told McAlpine he could be arrested for using homophobic language.

After the conversation, McAlpine got on a stepladder and preached a 20-minute sermon, in which he says he did not mention homosexuality. However, after the sermon, a number of police gathered and arrested him for using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act, which was originally created to deal with soccer hooligans.

Officers claimed McAlpine was speaking in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others during his conversation with the woman. McAlpine said he used a quiet voice.

—

Teen lost parts of both legs after failed abortion: pursues wrestling dream anyway – great story!

—

Poll Worker Melowese Richardson Apparently Cast Six Votes for Obama

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

For every Obamunist who publicly admits to voter fraud, there are tens of thousands either not quite dumb enough or too busy watching the massive, extravagantly expensive televisions favored by welfare recipients.

As Obama voters were casting multiple ballots, Romney voters had theirs thrown out. In the opposite corner of the state, 21 Cleveland districts recorded not a single vote for Romney.

That’s how elections work in a country that has been “fundamentally transformed” into a second-rate banana republic. Happy now, libs?

—

How Do We Break the Cycle of Higher Tuition and More Debt? — Subsidies for college funding make it more expensive, not less.  Too many people drop out who should have never been there to begin with.  We’d be much better off without the “everyone should go to college” mantra.  There is nothing wrong – and many things right – about more focus on trade schools.

—

When “same-sex marriage” becomes the law

• Religious liberty and freedom of conscience (i.e., the freedom to oppose homosexuality) will be repressed by the state in the name of “gay rights”; Illinois has already experienced this under our “Civil Unions” law [see the case of the Walders' bed-and-breakfast in Paxton, IL].  Despite the current bill being amended to protect churches and religious institutions, business owners — even devout Christians — who cater to weddings (such as banquet hall owners and photographers) could be forced to use their facilities or expertise to celebrate homosexual “marriages”;
• Liberal teachers, especially in public schools, will be emboldened to promote homosexual relationships to students in the classroom; homosexual teachers will be given a platform to discuss their “marriages” and to model homosexuality as normal, natural and good to students. Parents will have a harder time stopping the promotion of homosexuality in schools;
• Homosexual “sex ed” will gain ground in Illinois schools. Under the radical egalitarian idea that all relationships are morally “equal” and worthy of marriage, “safer gay sex” will be taught non-judgmentally alongside (normal) heterosexual sex. “Abstinence until marriage” (which regrettably is not the norm but only the ideal for most Illinois health classrooms) would apply to homosexual- and bisexual- as well as “straight” students — despite the reality that all homosexual sex is inherently immoral.  High-risk and unnatural practices like anal sex will be mainstreamed in our schools. (Could teaching the truth that sex between men is linked disproportionately to HIV and various sexually-transmitted diseases lead to charges of “anti-gay discrimination”?) And deviant lesbian sex will be taught for girls who in the future might “marry” a woman.
• Businessmen will be forced to recognize and subsidize their employees’ immoral same-sex “marriages”; a form of this is already happening under Illinois’ “Civil Unions” law;
• Society will be corrupted as unequal things are treated as equal; children will be further confused as the law (which is a teacher, as the saying goes) creates a Brave New Morality that officially “weds” sinful, unnatural and changeable behavior to the noble and life-sustaining institution of marriage;
• Homosexual activists will be energized to use the homosexual “marriage” law to pressure citizens to approve of their lifestyle and step up their crusade to stigmatize, demonize and discredit pro-family Christians and moral opponents of homosexuality.  Groups like AFTAH that embrace wholesome, godly morality will be vilified as “hateful and bigoted.” And, as we have witnessed in Massachusetts, the push for ever more extreme “LGBT rights” would be propelled by enactment of “same-sex marriage” — including “transgender” activism in schools.
• Legalized homosexual “marriage” will help “normalize” homosexual adoption, thus consigning greater numbers of innocent children to be raised in households that are motherless or fatherless by design.

—

The President of the United States, in some of his rare votes in the Illinois Senate, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act three times. He knew what it was about, and he spoke out against it.  This is who was elected as our President. 

—

Newtown Shooter Picked School As It Was The “Easiest Target” – all the laws being proposed will take away guns from law-abiding citizens, leave them in the hands of criminals, and do nothing to prevent deaths like those in Newtown.

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Free speech is so 20th century.

The only good thing about the across-the-board attempts to limit the free speech of Conservatives is that it reveals the very low confidence of the opposition.  As a Christian, I would never want to limit the ability of other religions to express their views.  I am all for the free expression of views in the market place of ideas.  I have confidence that my worldview holds up quite nicely.

If you care about free speech you should be chilled at what is going on in the U.S.  and in other Western countries (which inevitably ends up here).  Here are just a few examples.

Conservative views in general: See the Obama administration’s War on Fox  and the “Fairness” doctrine.

Pro-lifer: Pro-legalized abortionists shouting down pro-life speakers on a college campus in Canada — you know, one of those bastions of free speech and “challenge authority” philosophies.  How dare you mention in public the scientific fact that life begins at conception?

Intelligent Design: Darwinists Launch Cyber Attack Against Intelligent Design Website – Ever hear of Christians attacking atheist web sites like that?  Wow, these people are so fearful of anyone challenging their worldview.  Of course, you should also consider the whole Expelled! movie.

Hate speech laws:  Coming soon to a country near you: Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade

After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.

But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.

But don’t worry, if you are a Liberal you can publicly label a woman as a whore and have no consequences.

Biology, not bigotry, and removing barriers to evangelism

I’ll support unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions as soon as you convince me that the unborn aren’t human beings and I’ll support government recognition of “same-sex marriage” as soon as you prove that these couples can provide a mother and a father to a child.

In both cases it is biology, not bigotry, so don’t let people silence you on these crucial topics.

You don’t have to convert people to your point of view on marriage or abortion before sharing the Gospel or pointing them to the Bible.  But for many people these are barriers to even considering Christianity.  Just having a few replies — literally just a minute or so — is often all it takes.  You can simply say, “Yes, the Bible does say it is a sin but even if it didn’t we are still separated from God by our many other sins . . .” and then point them to the cross and to God’s word (same thing for the abortion issue).  Here’s a real-life example of how to do that.

If people are hostile to it, then hold your pearls.  But don’t give up before you try.

Roundup

Jim Wallis of Sojourners had his family interviewed about what his “new kind of Christianity” looks like.  Short version: No cross.

It reads like a spoof.  This “Christian” leader with the ear of the President makes time for baseball leagues but not church.  But what should we expect from a guy who is on record for saying that “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution?”

—–

Obama’s abortion, marriage views inspire dozens of Democratic politicians to join the GOP - Good for them!

“I’m a Christian, and my first allegiance is to Jesus Christ,” Sheriff Waggoner said. “God established marriage, and He established it between a man and a woman. Those are my beliefs. The Republican Party reflects my beliefs.” . . .

New party members sometimes become active leaders in the pro-life cause. Ohio State Representative Doug McKillip of Athens – who accepted a $500 donation from Planned Parenthood in 2006 as a Democrat – introduced a bill to limit abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy earlier this year.

McKillip credits his faith with his party change. “I became a Christian in ’09,” he said. “You start reading the Bible, and you realize life begins at conception.”

—–

Freedom of religion — or freedom of choice in general — you’re doing it wrong – California Senate bans “ex-gay” therapy – Looks like those anti-choice zealots from the hopelessly politicized anti-science groups are getting their way.  This is another in a long line of evidence against the “‘same-sex marriage’ won’t impact you” lie.

Don’t believe the lies: Change is possible.  See Witness Freedom Ministries, for example.

—–

Global Warming Alarmism: When Science IS Fiction – I love Forbes.

Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.

The pervasive hype that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis is based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. Much of this emanates from politically-corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel.

Fritz Vaherenholt, a socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement who headed the renewable energy division of the country’s second largest utility company, was once a big IPCC believer. Recently, however, his new book titled The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen, charges the organization with gross incompetence and dishonesty… especially regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of human CO2 emission influences.

Also see Confirmed: The Less You Know About Science The More You Believe In The Climate Change Hoax

—–

This Richard Leakey link claiming that the evolution debate will soon end has been getting a lot of attention.  He’s right, I think, but for the opposite reasons that he believes.

Such blind faith he has! And so naive and inconsistent. Christians have claimed for a couple thousand years that we all descended from one man and one woman, and Jews for a couple thousand years before that. I’m glad that this atheist is climbing on board the fact train! And his worldview gives him no grounding to consider extinction a disaster. If we’re all just random chemical reactions then there is no such thing as true good or evil. Like most atheists he can’t go three sentences without contradicting his worldview.

And he does the typical double speak about “evolution,” pretending that those who follow real science are denying that things change. That’s a straw man argument.

Roundup

Bad Doctrine is a Cruel Taskmaster – The term doctrine sounds dry and boring to some people, but the Bible could not be more clear about the importance of sound doctrine.  The first link has a list of many bad things that happen when we believe false teachings. The best antidote is to read the Bible.  A lot.

—–

I’m a Reformed Christian at a Baptist church, and I approve of this joke via Pastor Timothy (at least I think it was a joke . . .).

The argument between Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist essentially boils down to the following statements:

BAPTIST: “You Presbyterians use too little water too early!”

PRESBYTERIANS: “You Baptists use too much water too late!”

There, now you have it.

—–

The war on women of color?  Union leader smashes pinata with picture of Nikki Haley on it.  Would the media reaction have differed if the union person was a Tea Partier and the pinata had a picture of a Democrat who was a minority?

—–

I assume this quote is about the cessation of some spiritual gifts, an argument I haven’t researched much.  But he makes a good point about the false teachers.

If signs and wonders did still exist, do you think they would be given to people with bad theology? You think God would give Benny Hinn the power to do miracles to authenticate really bad theology? If those gifts existed, they would belong to the purest, most faithful, sound teachers of the word of God to authenticate their teaching–not to hair-brained people who spew out whatever comes into their head.  – John MacArthur

—–

The Perils of Polygamy — Polygamy is bad for men, women, children and society in general.  But do the pro-”same-sex marriage” folks advocate for polygamy with the same passion and reasoning that they do for their pet cause, or are they shameless, bigoted haters?  Seems to me that the case for polygamy, as flawed as it is, is superior to the one for “same-sex marriage.”  After all, polygamous marriages involve a man and a woman, which can produce children and provide a mother and father to them — albeit in a far less desirable way than traditional marriage.

—–

CNN Urges Normal Couples to Emulate Homosexuals’ Promiscuity – That’s impossible!  They must be taking things out of context, right?  Nope.

According to “eminent marriage therapist” John Gottman,

“Straight couples may have a lot to learn from gay and lesbian relationships.”

For example,

“A number of my gay clients prefer to be sexually open but emotionally monogamous,” says sex and relationship therapist Joe Kort. “They can have lovers on the side and not have it be a threat to the relationship.”

It’s a type of male coupledom that sex columnist Dan Savage has famously termed “monogamish” …

I’m going to ignore that advice.

—–

Obama 2004 Campaign Flashback: Bush Deficit Is An “Enormous Problem” – yep.

—–

Fashion show at church – worse than it sounds.

Most pastors are probably not terribly concerned about the fashion statement they make from the pulpit … certainly not enough to start a web site devoted to the topic. But Ed Young, senior pastor of Fellowship Church, a mega-church in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is not most pastors. In February of this year, he launched Pastor Fashion, which is devoted to exploring how “the men and women of God [can] set the standard for the rest of the world in fashion as well as faith.”

. . .

Yikes. One might be concerned that Young is too focused on outward appearances … and they would probably be right. On this point, he told ABC News: “You need to make the cover as good as possible so people will read the book.” . . .

“We should be at the forefront of fashion,” he told ABC News. “I think we have the ultimate message and should dress up with the times.” Staying up on the trends of the times sounds like quite a luxury … not something God actually expects of his followers. Perhaps the fact that people frequently notice Young’s hip clothes and consult him for fashion advice should serve as a warning to focus less on external appearances, rather than more.

This is one more reason I’m glad I moved to Reformed theology. I don’t have to waste a single moment worried that if I don’t have just the right shirt on that someone won’t get saved.

Years ago I used to catch Young’s father on the radio and he seemed pretty sound.  If his father isn’t embarrassed about his son, then he should be embarrassed about not being embarrassed.

—–

Another boomerang for Obama – Guess who got the most private-equity money in 2008? – So if he is too critical of Romney & Bain he looks more like a hypocrite and risks losing their donations this time.

Yeah, it is worth it.

A post called How to win a culture war and lose a generation posited that the church needs to change its views on homosexuality to increase membership.

This topic is certainly the #1 way Satan is fighting the church, literally splitting denominations and trying to convince people to adopt non-biblical views to cater to the world. But if they read the Bible thoroughly they’d note that God is really, really not worried about being unpopular.

Barna says non-believers don’t like what believers believe? Oh noes! We better hurry up and change our views! /sarcasm

When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)

In the book that documents these findings, titled unChristian, David Kinnaman writes:

“The gay issue has become the ‘big one, the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity’s reputation. It is also the dimensions that most clearly demonstrates the unchristian faith to young people today, surfacing in a spate of negative perceptions: judgmental, bigoted, sheltered, right-wingers, hypocritical, insincere, and uncaring. Outsiders say [Christian] hostility toward gays…has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith.”

Later research, documented in Kinnaman’s You Lost Me, reveals that one of the top reasons 59 percent of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends.  Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and this  is one reason why.

As Pastor Timothy noted, the real reason 59% of the people left the church is because they weren’t saved to begin with.

In my experience, all the anecdotal evidence backs up the research.

. . .

And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-at-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.

Regardless of whether you identify most with Side A or Side B, (or with one of the many variations within those two broad categories), it should be clear that amendments like these needlessly offend gays and lesbians, damage the reputation of Christians, and further alienate young adults—both Christians and non-Christian—from the Church.

So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it? 

Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church?

Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?

Is a political “victory” worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians?

And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks—what if we get this wrong?

Too many Christian leaders seem to think the answer to that question is “yes,” and it’s costing them.

Because young Christians are ready for peace.

We are ready to lay down our arms. 

We are ready to start washing feet instead of waging war. 

Yes yes yes yes yes yes.  It is worth it.  Standing up for God’s truth is worth it.  Protecting religious freedom is worth it.  Keeping 5 yr. olds from being told how natural LGBTQX behavior is is worth it.  Not lying to people and encouraging them to engage in spiritually, physically and emotionally destructive lifestyles is worth it.

Despite the efforts of those living in Stereotype Land, we can share the truth in love.  In fact, it is profoundly un-loving when we don’t tell the truth.  We don’t have to lead with this issue, but we don’t have to back down from it like faithless cowards.

I don’t think we’ll lose a generation.  I trust a sovereign God to reach whomever He is going to reach, and I trust him to communicate his word to us accurately.  I trust that if I stick to his truths everything else will work out fine.

Because of their idolatry, God gave them up to . . . square dancing?!

Well, not exactly.

Romans 1 has a tightly written explanation of why homosexual behavior is an example of rebellion against God’s created order.

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.

I am very familiar with the objections and counter-arguments about Romans 1 and have written about them in Romans 1 and natural functions and Romans 1 and temple prostitutes.  There are more responses here to pro-gay theology in general.

But I was re-reading the False Teacher Profile post and something struck me that I hadn’t noticed before.  Uber-commenter Bubba made the following observation about the pro-gay theology views of the false teacher in question (bold added):

Paul is also quite clear in Romans 1: because of man’s idolatry, God gave up the unrighteous to impurity (1:24), to dishonorable passions (1:26), and to a debased mind (1:28), leading to all manner of evil, including envy, murder, and slander. Even if one were to put a heavy emphasis on the fact that this consequence of homosexual behavior was in the context of idolatry, it’s still impossible to conclude that homosexual behavior is biblically permissible.

AFTER ALL, God wouldn’t “hand over” an idolator to behavior that is good or even morally neutral. “They were idolators, and so God gave them over to prayer and almsgiving” DOES NOT WORK as a logical progression, nor does the idea that they were idolators, and so God would give them over to morally neutral behavior like square dancing and poetry readings.

No matter how you try to spin it, God was punishing their idolatry with something negative.  No matter what completes the “God gave them up to ____” passage, it is, by definition, a negative thing.  So those who claim that the “real” sin is idolatry are missing the point.

As Bubba noted, God didn’t “give them over” to square dancing or some benign thing, He gave them over to homosexual behavior.

Yes, idolatry is a sin that we all have to fight, and there is a laundry list of sins at the end of Romans 1 that we can be tempted by.  We shouldn’t grandstand on the sin of homosexuality just because it isn’t a temptation for us.  But neither should we lie and say it isn’t sinful.  And when the world and false teachers are trying to force us to change our religious beliefs on this topic, we need to defend the truth.  They brought up the topic, not us.

God “gave up” the false teachers as well, as their idolatry leads them to sit in judgment of God and to give approval to those who practice homosexual behavior and other sins.

Despite what the media, government and countless false churches will tell you, homosexual behavior is still a sin.  It is a forgivable sin, and one that people can be rescued from, but it is still a sin.  If you can’t bring yourself to say that then Christianity may not be for you.

Roundup

T.D. Jakes = prosperity gospel false teacher.  MacDonald and Driscoll = hypocrites.  Why didn’t they ask Jakes about his in the meeting where they were buying his anti-trinitarian heresy rationalizations?  Hat tip: Sola Sisters

—

What working at Wal-Mart taught a young conservative woman about the poor

Here are just two short anecdotes:

a) People ignoring me on their iPhones while the state paid for their food. (For those of you keeping score at home, an iPhone is at least $200, and requires a data package of at least $25 a month. If a person can spend $25+ a month so they can watch YouTube 24/7, I don’t see why they can’t spend that money on food.)

d) A man who ran a hotdog stand on the pier in Portland, Maine used to come through my line. He would always discuss his hotdog stand and encourage me to “come visit him for lunch some day.” What would he buy? Hotdogs, buns, mustard, ketchup, etc. How would he pay for it? Food stamps. Either that man really likes hotdogs, or the state is paying for his business. Not okay.

—

I really appreciate Pastor Foster’s ministry.

The following is DL Foster’s speech at the Jan. 17, 2012 AFTAH press conference outside the Southern Poverty Law Center, featuring African American and pro-family Christian leaders condemning the SPLC’s “hate group” politics. Foster is a pastor and the founder of Gay Christian Movement Watch, based in Atlanta:

—

Steve Jobs: ‘I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion’ – I’m glad he didn’t end up as one, and I’m glad I didn’t either (I was born 10 yrs. less one day before the Roe v Wade decision).  Too bad he didn’t make his views more visible while he was alive.  Or maybe he just thought it was important that he was alive but not the people who bought his goods?

—

How Barack Obama and other big government statists really bankroll their reelections – great video.  This image below the video explains most of it: Even if we cut 100% of non-entitlement spending (i.e., zero military, zero infrastructure, zero politicians, etc.) we don’t take in enough money to pay entitlements.  The deficit grows every year and we’ll be like Greece — only on a much larger and more devastating scale — in less time than you’d think.

Do you wonder how many studies aren’t published because they didn’t give the “right” answers?

Or, the “Left” answers, to be more specific.  See the video at James O’ Keefe Investigation: Rutgers Education Professor in Pay-for-Play | MRCTV to see how a Rutgers education professor agrees not to make a deal until the research shows what he wants it to be.

We know how wildly biased media and education can be, but I’ve never given much thought to how many things the Left can hide in academia.  Think of the studies that allegedly show how well kids turn out in gay/lesbian households.  But what makes you think they wouldn’t hide a study that showed otherwise?

For example:

However, a new in-depth review of 59 studies on gay parenting has concluded that such “strong assertions” about gay parenting are “not empirically warranted.”

Most of the 59 gay-parenting studies involve children of high-income white lesbian mothers or tended to use very small samples; studied children but not teens; and either had no comparison families or compared lesbian-led homes with single-mother-led homes, wrote Louisiana State University family science professor Loren Marks.

These and other weaknesses cannot support broad statements that there are “no significant differences” between being raised in same-sex versus mother-father homes, wrote Mr. Marks, whose analysis was included in the Oct. 15 briefs filed by the House of Representatives in its defense of DOMA in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.

On bullying: Why are products of Darwinian evolution surprised that products of Darwinian evolution behave like products of Darwinian evolution?

Sorry for the less-than-pithy title, but I spelled it out to emphasize the multiple inconsistencies of the Leftist/Darwinian crowd that poses as part of the anti-bullying movement.

First, I want to be clear that I oppose all bullying.*  For example, I know many gay/lesbian people, and I would defend them if they were bullied just as I would defend other sinners who were getting bullied.  I’m just predisposed to protect the weak and defenseless, such as the unborn.

OK, back to whaling on the Leftist Darwinists: For starters, they don’t mind bullying as long as they are the bullies.  See the Expelled! movie, for example.  They are so “confident” in their views that they delight in using their power to silence opposing views, end careers, etc.  Academic bullying is still bullying.  The root of bullying is cowardice and fear, and they display it regularly.

And if they really believed what they claim they’d concede that there is no grounding to criticize bullying.  Oh, we all know it is wrong, but in a molecules-to-man worldview you can write volumes trying to rationalize objective morality (and they do try!) but you always end up losing.  It turns out to be “truth is relative” morality that they have no logical grounds to expect others to follow unless forced to.

And of course, if there is no God and we are purely the result of the Darwinian mechanism, then it is to “blame” for bullying.  How could you hold the bullies accountable? They were born that way.

Finally, wouldn’t bullying be a positive in the Darwinian worldview?  You know, survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak and all that.  Why do they get squeamish and give up a core principle of their cherished worldview?

—–

* My official, one-size-fits-all anti-bullying policy, offered here for the public domain and available for use by all school districts, free of charge:

If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds, including the Internet, you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.

Training over. You don’t need LGBTQ sex clubs in schools to prevent bullying.  That is just a Trojan Horse.

More mainstream church rebellion

The Methodist Book of Discipline has a biblical view of homosexuality, but there are too many people willing to break the rules because they are tired of losing in their efforts to have it changed.  Via Methodist Liberals: We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules:

For several decades now, the liberal formula for forcing through unpopular changes in the mainline churches has been to deliberately break the rules of the targeted denomination, and then daring the authorities to enforce discipline. This practice was spectacularly successful in the Episcopal Church, where women’s ordination became a reality after this kind of blackmail. It now looks like liberal United Methodist clergy have decided that this approach might force the denomination to accept same-sex marriage. According to Pamela Lightsey, Dean of Students at Garrett-Evangelical Seminary (Rosemary Reuther’s old haunt):

Across the country, clergy members in the United Methodist Church are now being faced with the stark reality that public policy is far more prophetic and just than our current church polity as they witness the increasing passing of laws that support marriage rights and civil unions of LGBTQ persons. What are loving clergy to say to those persons whom they have had the honor of watching grow as faithful members of our church when asked to officiate and bless them in a ceremony (whether it be marriage, civil union, or commitment) that honors their desire to be in lifelong relationships with loving partners?

Here’s an option: Tell them the biblical truth that homosexual behavior is a sin.  They are welcome to have non-sexual life long relationships.  We even have a special name for those relationships: Friendships.

Last week, 70 United Methodist Clergy in Minnesota pledged to defy church polity against performing such ceremonies. This week, as of Thursday, 134 clergy in the Northern Illinois Conference have pledged the same. If they follow through with their pledge, they face the possibility of losing their clergy orders. It should be noted that losing one’s credentials is not simply losing the ability to continue your called vocation as clergy but with it, takes away their authorization to preside over the sacred rituals of baptism and Holy Eucharist. I should also mention, it includes a host of practical entitlements such as health benefits, clergy housing allowance (a tax benefit), parsonages, and fellowship within several clergy peer groups. Sufficeth to say, their commitment is a boldly courageous posture….

What we are doing is in fact challenging our church to keep its word and be an “open,” inclusive and loving member of the body of Christ. We are committed to this risk-taking ministry. I trust our Episcopal leaders will know that we are praying for them and that this action is our faithful witness “to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.” (Micah 6:8)

They are walking with their god — the one of their own making.

So just add dishonesty to their list of traits (technically it was already there — they either lied at their ordination vows or changed their minds later and didn’t have the integrity to leave).

It applies to all churches, though.  The blame ultimately falls on wimpy conservatives who liked their popularity more than they liked exercising church discipline.  We should have kicked out these apostates long ago, but rationalized that we were being more “civil” by letting them stay.

I’m a fan of real civility, but I don’t apologize for stepping on wolf toes.