The New Jersey issue is bigger than the Duck Dynasty issue

The Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson topic has received tons of attention, and deservedly so.  But the bigger issue is how the pro-LGBTQ groups aren’t satisfied with merely redefining marriage in an anti-biblical way, but how they won’t rest until they have completely stamped out religious freedom and forced churches to affirm their activities.  The A&E issue is a sad commentary on our society, but the New Jersey issue is about the power of Big Government to suppress religious freedom.

Via Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality:

Earlier this week state Senate Democrats in New Jersey pulled from consideration a bill that would write gay marriage, already legal in New Jersey by court order, into the law books. The reason: the bill contained religious exemptions.  Loretta Weinberg, the Senate Majority Leader, said she pulled the bill after pressure from an LGBTQ legal group, Lambda Legal.

“They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),” Weinberg said.

Re-read that carefully: They don’t want any kind of religious exemption.  None.  It isn’t about their freedom to do what they want.  They’ve had that for years.  No one is preventing their relationships and/or promiscuous sex, or even doing anything to stop 62% of men who know they are HIV-positive who have unprotected sex with men.  This is about silencing Christians and forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

“There’s a disparate group of people and it’s hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.”

The decision by New Jersey Democrats and A&E are similar. When pressured by LGBTQ groups, organizations and politicians will choose to silence Christians who oppose the normalization of homosexual behavior.

Many Christians have assumed that they would be allowed reasonable exemptions and accommodations based on religious liberty. But LGBTQ activists have made it clear (and have said so from the beginning) that unconditional acceptance of homosexuality is the only option. Normalization and public support, rather than mere legal recognition, is the end goal.

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

Make no mistake: Satan won’t rest until he has silenced Christians.  That will never happen completely, of course, but there is a rocky road coming up.  Many of us have warned of these logical consequences for years, but too many Christians thought they could sit on the fence.  There is no fence.

But be encouraged!  God always wins in the end.  Don’t be afraid to stand up for the truth.

Whom can you marry? An exhaustive list of Biblical rules.

wedding-rings2.jpgA favorite updated for your reading pleasure.

According to the Bible, a Christian should only marry a person who is:

  1. A Christian
  2. Able to be married (i.e., of legal age, not married already, etc.)
  3. Of the opposite sex

Item 3 used to be self-evident (and still is, for most of us), but we had to add it to the list a few years back.

That’s it. Despite the stereotype that the Bible is just a giant rule book, many things are very simple.

The key constraint is usually item 1: The future spouse must be a Christian.  Ignoring God’s clear direction on this is a bad idea.  Just because God might ultimately bless it doesn’t mean He is obligated to.  That’s why it is called grace.  (Full disclosure: It is possible that my wife violated guideline #1 in marrying me.  Fortunately, she lost the receipt so she can’t return me now.)

“Missionary dating” (that is, dating someone in hopes of converting them) is un-Biblical, as it is based on false pretenses.  God might bless your relationship and your spouse might become a Christian, but there are no guarantees of that in scripture.  You just don’t want to start your marriage in clear violation of one of God’s commands.

Marrying someone outside your faith is problematic.  You will have vastly different views on what should be the most important part of your life.  It will send a horrible message to your children, namely that you and your spouse thought it was important to agree on where to live, how many kids to have, where to vacation, what to eat, etc., but it wasn’t important for you to have even a general agreement on who God is and how that should impact your lives.

A good Christian friend realized the error of his ways and broke off a relationship with a non-Christian.  It was pretty painful, but certain things validated why he needed to make the break: She specifically tempted him to deny his God, “Just this once” - proof enough as to why such relationships are a bad idea.

Sadly, I know countless church-going parents who don’t teach their kids to only date Christians, and who think little or nothing of their kids marrying non-Christians.  And countless pastors officiate at these ceremonies without ever counseling people about what God says.

Of course, just because it is moral to marry someone doesn’t mean it it wise.  There is a lot of wisdom and advice about how and whether to marry in the book of Proverbs and in 1 Corinthians 7, among other places.  These passages were directed to Solomon’s son but they apply to both sexes.

Proverbs 12:4 A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

Proverbs 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

Proverbs 21:19 Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.

Proverbs 27:15 A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day;

Proverbs 31:10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.

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.

Prohibit, permit or promote?

J. Warner Wallace of Stand to Reason made some excellent points about the role of government in same-sex relationships.  These are very useful to help frame the argument against the government recognition of “same-sex marriage.”

Government has three options with respect to a given behavior:

1. Prohibit – Disallow it and punish offenders.

2. Permit – Allow it, but don’t offer incentives for it.

3. Promote – Actively encourage it via recognition and/or incentives.

Even though same-sex activity causes various societal problems (e.g., according to the CDC, gay men have HIV and Syphilis rates greater than 40 times the average), it isn’t practical or desirable to think that government could completely or closely monitor or prevent those relationships.

But should government promote this behavior via recognizing “same-sex marriage” and conferring benefits upon them?  No.

For the government to get involved in relationships there has to be an important reason. They have been involved in real marriages because by nature and design children are created by those units and they are the only relationships that can provide a mother and a father to children. Countless studies show this as the ideal, so the government has good reasons to encourage their stability. Nearly all the men I’ve met doing prison ministry had absent or poor fathers.

Please note that I didn’t say that they must produce children, only that children are always produced by one man and one woman. It is sad how many times Liberals trot out that straw man.  And again, only those relationships can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Deliberately denying this to a child is cruel.

While it may be logical at this point to permit but not prohibit these relationships, there are no good reasons to promote them. None.  And there are many good reasons not to promote SSM: The erosion of free speech and religious freedom and the damage done to children.  Despite what the fools presenting to the Supreme Court on Prop 8 claim, children do deserve to have a mother and a father.

The two best ways to love your family and save a ton of money

1. Keep yourself fit.

2. Work on your marriage.

Seriously.  There are a lot of great money management ideas out there, but those two will make the most difference.

If you keep yourself fit — and I don’t mean tri-athlete fit, just moderate exercise/eat fairly well/don’t abuse alcohol and drugs type fit — you will save massive amounts of money on health care.  If you haven’t already figured it out, Obamacare will be a disaster for this country, with higher costs and worse care.  You can’t avoid some illnesses, but you’d be surprised how many things you can prevent.  Just do some kind of exercise/activities you enjoy and eat decently (eat a little less, eat a little healthier).

And you won’t just save money, you’ll be loving your family.  And you’ll feel better and work better.  Who would want to unnecessarily burden their spouse and kids with their health problems?

And if you work on your marriage you’ll prevent a divorce, which would cost you dearly. I was teaching a Sunday School class on the Fireproof movie once and asked how many couple have so much extra money that they could afford a second household.  No hands were raised.

And this isn’t just for young couples.  I have seen far too many couples divorce who had been married 20+ years.  If you get complacent things could unravel.  Plan ahead for empty nests and ensure that you still have common interests.  Ballroom dancing has been great for us, but it doesn’t matter if it is motor cycling, bowling, or whatever.  Just do something together regularly that you both enjoy.

So spend some time on your marriage and save big.  More importantly, that is the best thing you can do to show love to your spouse and your kids.

Is opposing “same-sex marriage” like opposing interracial marriage?

Not at all.  It is remarkably simple to refute the argument in the title by accurately noting that skin color is morally neutral while sexual behavior is not.

But there is another interesting argument that goes even further, and it highlights how the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is actually the one similar to the racists who opposed interracial marriage.

Here’s why: The Left is (successfully) lobbying for coercive government force to change the meaning of marriage. The racists changed it to mean “only same-race couples” instead of just a union of one man and one woman, and the Left is now using it to change it to mean, “not just the union of a man and a woman.”

Marriage is what God defined it to be.  It describes a thing — a union of a man and a woman.  The term didn’t pre-date the institution, such that we get to define it any way we like.

If anyone is behaving like those that opposed interracial marriage it is the Left.  They are the ones abusing the original and obvious definition.

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.

Facebook memes follow-up

I thought I’d post this comment and my response that resulted from the Facebook memes post.  Looks like I have another fan.

Your “logic” is irrevocobly flawed. I’m just curious, when was it that you “proved” your civil right to marry a woman? When was it that African Americans “proved” their civil right to freedom? When did they “prove” their civil right to equal treatment? And what did they do to prove it? As was the case with slavery, just because something is done a certain way for a long time, doesn’t make it the “correct” or “only” way. If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on? If the Bible doesn’t influence our judicial system, what do you propose as an argument in the Supreme Court, against it? Will you argue that gay people haven’t sucessfully proven their civil right to marry? Establishing a burden of proof does not apply to civil rights.

I would love to read your rebuttle, because I am honestly trying to understand your thought process. Sadly, I’m sure you will not allow this comment to be posted, because it rationally and coherently refutes your reasoning. I have found that Conservative bloggers tend to deny the comments that are based on facts, when the facts aren’t in their favor. I truly hope you aren’t as cowardly as the rest.

Regarding conservative blogs moderating you, please hold off on martyr status until you do some self-reflection. Your comment here was an extended straw-man argument about religious views. Ironically, your anti-religion bigotry and prejudices fit much better with the pictured meme than our view about real marriage. It is self-serving on your part to go to conservative blogs with your fallacious rants and then pre-emptively call them cowards for not wanting to discuss things with you. If I try to avoid an irrational crank at work I’m being wise, not cowardly.

If you want to gain some credibility here, please provide links to where you have made comments like this to theological liberals (read: fake Christians) who advocate for oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.” You may also want to consider how I didn’t make religious arguments, I made secular ones.

If YOUR religion prohibits YOU from accepting opposing gay marriage, I completely respect that. I obviously do not agree with you, but I aknowledge your desire to adhere to your religious beliefs. With that said, YOUR religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with the running of our government; nor does it have any part in determining what is, and what isn’t a person’s civil rights. Our forefathers made a point to both protect our citizens rights to worship their chosen religion, AND protect our government from undue religious influence. Nowhere in our Constitution, is there found a definition for marriage. . . .

You’ll note that I only had to change one word to turn your diatribe into one against the anti-biblical “Christians” who push for “same-sex marriage.” So unless you are a hypocrite, you’ll have plenty of examples to show me where you fight their un-Constitutional intrusion into the marriage debate. Or do you just play the religious-suppression card on those you disagree with?

You might also want to consider how the 1st Amendment protects religious speech and does not prohibit it. As with the Obama administration, you have it backwards. My religion teaches me that it is wrong to beat up atheists and steal their property. Using your logic I’d have to be silent on that in the public square or even vote the opposite, lest I “force” my religious views on atheists.

Now to a couple of your arguments:

I am well aware what the “traditional” meaning is, as I am aware that gay couples can’t produce children, so please don’t feel the need to “inform” me on those two facts. “Traditional” doesn’t equate “the only way”, it simply means the most popular way. And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children. So what truth outside the Bible do you believe you stand on?

That’s a clever rhetorical trick you play there, and sadly enough, it works on many people. You concede my key point that by nature and design gay couples can’t produce children, but you simultaneously pretend that I haven’t made any secular arguments. Not so fast. Since we both agree on that fact, you should ask why government is involved in any personal relationships. The government does not regulate my love for my wife, nor does it need to. It is only involved because the obvious ideal, supported by countless studies and common sense, is that a child be raised by his mother and father, as well as the scientific fact that children are produced by unions of one man and one woman. Even Darwinists should see the merits of that.

And I didn’t use the term “traditional,” you inserted that. Words mean things, and throughout history the term marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman. Only recently have some dictionaries bowed to pressure and modified it. And your overly broad argument also justifies polygamy and incest and is already being used by pedophiles. After all, if you are changing the definition of marriage why do you get to pull up the drawbridge after you’ve made your preferred change? Why won’t you let others change the laws to suit their desires?

And obviously, many unions between a man and a woman do not produce children.

Agreed, but this doesn’t change the premise that by nature and design children are produced by a union of a male and a female and that only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.

Since you brought up the religion topic I thought I’d share a summary of what the one true God says about marriage and parenting:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to 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.

Also see this secular case against “same-sex marriage” as well as these:

Problems with pro-gay theology  

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology     

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

Whoa — Pat Robertson gets one right!

wedding-rings2.jpgI do not care for Pat Robertson and his many false claims, but he is right on this one: Pat Robertson Tells Christian Viewer to Dump Muslim Girlfriend.

Even a non-religious person should see that couples should agree on the foundations of how they view the world. Do people think they can disagree on who God is, what happens when you die, how to be reconciled to God, etc., and that it won’t have a radical impact on them and their children? They plan to find agreement on where to live, how many kids to have, where to vacation, etc., but not on the key questions of life?

The message to their children will come through loud and clear: The concept of God is so unimportant to us and irrelevant to life that we didn’t find it necessary to agree on it before committing to spend our lives together.

More importantly, for Christians to marry non-Christians is forbidden in scripture.  2 Corinthians 6:14 is often cited (Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?) but you can also see all of 1 Corinthians 7.

And while God might ultimately bless the union in his radical grace, what makes anyone think He is obliged to bless a union entered into via disobedience?

Christians should not date non-Christians.  Satan has used this countless times to draw people away from God.  Heck, Muslims should not date non-Muslims, for that matter.  And so on.

Here’s an example offered by Dan:

I was speaking with a co-worker who was having problems in his marriage, and their future as a couple was not looking good at all.  It seems that him (a “Christian”) and his wife (a Jew) saw their religious “diversity” as a great positive going into marriage.  Why not?  It’s the craze of the age… right?   But then a child came into the picture and all of a sudden their diversity was an insurmountable mountain.  The religions that they had both subjected to the wisdom of a bunch of pointy-headed Utopians had suddenly risen from its bottom self status to supreme importance when it came to raising their son.  This fellow could see the writing on the wall.  He knew his choice was to raise their child a Jew, or be reduced to a weekend Dad by the courts.  A loving person could have told him this if he’d been curious or humble enough to seek council about it before hand.  Why does man insists on being so short sighted?

Roundup

—–

Sadly, pro-choicers think it is a good thing that we’ve reduced the cases of Down Syndrome outside the womb by killing 90% of those who have it when they are inside the womb.  And yet they think pro-lifers are the extremists.

—–

For you Reformed folks, please consider switching from TULIP to BACON.  Tulips are beautiful but bacon is tastier and more manly-sounding.

—–

Good, simple flowchart in responding to same-sex marriage arguments (click the link to embiggen and get the jpeg):

Marriage-Flow-Final-2.png (1024×563)

—–

Mainstreaming Bisexuality: ‘Captain Bisexual’ Marches in Chicago Pride Parade as Young Children Watch – the title says it all.

—–

Aussie Communists: ‘Strike blows’ against the Church and capitalism with same-sex ‘marriage’ – Hey, kudos to them for being honest about their agenda.  At least they didn’t peddle the lies about it being for “love,” which countless unthinking people reflexively repeat (as if not changing the definition of a timeless word would prevent people from loving each other).

Roundup

In case you missed it — a great video on marriage — the story of Ian and Larissa.

—–

Courtesy of Duane from Facebook, the two tenets of the Tolerance and Diversity movement:

  1. We Support Free Speech.
  2. Shut Up.

—–

I thought this was a gag at first – Coming Next: ADA Lawsuits Over Shy Bladder Syndrome.  Sadly, it isn’t.  This is government out of control.

—–

Self-professed pro-choice ‘terrorist’ pleads guilty to issuing death threats: cyanide found in home – Did this make the mainstream news?  I assume not.  Rhetorical question: Would it have had more publicity if it had been a pro-lifer?

—–

Lifting the Lid on Censorship of Black on White Violence – just a little balance would be nice.

The establishment media serves one purpose in this country: to advance the liberal agenda. Neither public safety nor the duty to keep the public informed is allowed to get in the way.

—–

Will the media bother to tell Ohioans that Obama’s ad there is pure fiction?

All of which means that the actual message of the ad is “I had a job in the auto industry until about six years ago… and then I got a new job. Which is apparently one with a bad environmental and fiscal record, but that doesn’t matter! That’s because Barack Obama really, really needs me to get on the screen and tell you how great it is for me as a spectator to see the auto industry get bailed out. So I figure that I’m golden… oh, crud, Facebook. But… they promised me that Republicans couldn’t read!”

Which, admittedly, doesn’t really sing as a campaign message.

—–

The viciousness of the Darwin Lobby:

Evolution News writes about an eminent scientist who is under by professors and students at Emory University because of his disagreement with Darwinian orthodoxy and his assertion that morality isn’t possible on a materialistic worldview.

Here’s the first article from Evolution News, which explains what got Dr. Carson in trouble with the Darwoids.

Excerpt:

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

All that, but if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is that man.

—–

This explains a lot about healthy eating and a proper diet:

400 Calories, by Volume

—–

Obama’s SSM stance looks to be hurting him with Independents.  I’d ignore the Republican less likely / Democrat more likely figures, as those would probably be the same regardless.  But the Independent gap is telling.

Yea for North Carolina!

Once again, every state that has let the voters decide has stood up for real marriage.  See North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions.  This will help protect religious freedoms, among other things.  The only states that have recognized these unions did so through judges or elected officials.

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid “domestic legal partnership” in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP’s projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law.

Note the mistake in the title of the link: This didn’t “ban” “gay marriage,” it noted what the state recognizes as valid.  Gays can still go to all sorts of apostate churches and get “married,” set up house together, etc.  In other words, no one is stopping them from associating with those they love.

They won by a huge margin despite being wildly outspent by their opponents out-of-state funding.

Bonus link: A secular case against “same-sex marriage.”

This should make for an interesting location for the Democratic convention:

Whoever decided to put the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina should be given a lollipop by the GOP for the intense level of comedic schadenfreude we can all now watch. The Democrats will convene in a proudly right to work state whose state Democratic Party is imploding due to a gay sexual harassment scandal, the state itself just voted for marriage by a margin few statewide candidates in North Carolina get, and twenty percent of Democrats voted against Barack Obama in the North Carolina Democratic Primary.

On the bright side, North Carolina is not West Virginia where a felon in federal prison in Texas locked up 40% of the vote in the Democratic Primary against Barack Obama.

Courtesy of John, here is a list of all the results from other states.

Satan is evil, not stupid

And he doesn’t mind being a hypocrite.

Here’s an example that gets repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times per day: Via his useful idiots in media, education and apostate churches, Satan tempts women to get abortions by filling their minds with all sorts of lies about how killing their unwanted children will solve their problems.

Then right after the abortion he’ll be glad to tell them how awful and unforgivable they are for killing their own kids.  He’ll remind them of that as often as he can for the rest of their lives.  Hypocrisy?  Sure, but what does he care?  He has helped kill another human being made in the image of God and distanced another person from God.

He’ll even entice women to have a 2nd abortion even though they feel guilty about the first one.  Why?  Because they believe the lie that anyone who had an abortion doesn’t deserve to be a mother.  Illogical?  Yes, but again, he doesn’t care about consistency.

I heard of one couple who knew they had done wrong in having an abortion, but thought that meant they couldn’t go to church.  Whose idea was that?  By definition, churches should welcome lost sinners who want to repent and be healed.

But there is good news and hope: Even people who have been involved in abortions can get forgiveness and healing through Jesus.  One of the best things that Pregnancy Resource Centers do — besides savings lives today and for eternity — is offering post-abortion trauma counseling to women who desperately need it.  And they all need it, whether they know it or not.

If you were part of the abortion process, don’t let Satan win and keep you from God.  Help is out there from people who truly care.

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.

Cohabiting couples 8 times more likely to abort than married couples

See Holy smoke: check out the disparity in abortion rate between cohabiting and married couples.  Once again, defying God’s guidelines for sex and marriage has painful and deadly consequences.

Sex is like duct tape

Work with me here, people.

The truth that people who have sex create a bond isn’t just biblical (“one flesh”), it is scientific.  Anyone supporting “comprehensive” sex education should be teaching this.

J. Budziszewski is a philosophy professor at the University of Texas.  He shares the following illustration, summarized well by Chuck Colson when describing Budziszewski’s book, Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students:

My favorite question is why “sowing your wild oats” never works out the way it’s supposed to.  Sexuality, he says, is like duct tape. The first time you use it, it sticks you to whomever it touches. But just like that duct tape, if you rip it off and then touch it to someone else, it isn’t as sticky as it was before. So what happens when you pull it loose from one partner after another?  Budziszewski explains: You just don’t stick anymore, your sexual partners seem like strangers, and you stop feeling anything.

Ripping the duct tape off is extremely painful as well, especially the first time – just as the break-up of a sexual relationship can be more painful than a regular one.  It may seem progressively easier to “tear off” with subsequent partners, but you can’t make it stick on command when you finally decide to commit.

Here’s an article from the Boundless Webzine that describes it in more detail.

“But how do you know if you have a commitment?” he asked.

“Easy,” I said. “If you’re married, you’ve got one. If you’re not married, you don’t.”

Science confirms that this isn’t just a clever illustration.  Consider oxytocin, a chemical that, among other things, encourages bonding of mates.  More about it here.  It is no wonder why people form sexual addictions and why encouraging people to experiment with any sexual behavior will lead to problems.

Do these “experts” pushing to normalize fornication and homosexuality not understand the psychological and physiological implications of such behavior?  Or is the problem that they understand them too well?  Teaching the sex without consequences myth (“just use condoms and everything will be ok!”) is cruel and stupid.

I like this duct tape example because it is provocative, accurate and helpful in exposing the lies of the sex-as-recreation crowd.  Regardless of what Planned Parenthood and the rest tell you, sex outside of a one man, one woman marriage will always hurt you.  No amount of birth control and abortions can change that.

This concept is right out of the Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:16-18 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”  But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Once again, God’s way is the best way.  When God described the union of a man and a woman as “one flesh,” He meant it.  You become one.  When your flesh is joined and you tear it apart it will be extremely painful.

Yet as He shows again and again, redemption and healing are possible with him.  He loves to forgive and help people out of bondage.  Today is a great day to stop the cycle and educate people about the truth.  Here’s a book designed to help (I haven’t read it but heard the author on a radio show) – The Invisible Bond: How to Break Free from Your Sexual Past.

Note: This is a somewhat edited repeat from 2008.