Tag Archives: LGBT

Roundup

Gay daughter sent bishop back to twist scripture

6 Comments

File this under the “one more reason I’m glad I left the Methodist church” category.  Their news service published this by a retired bishop:  Gay daughter sent bishop back to Scriptures | United Methodist News Service.

He is another in a long line of “Christian” parents who twist God’s word to justify their children’s sins.  It is bad enough when lay people do it, but this phony makes the same common intellectually bankrupt arguments that pagans make.  He knows better.

And he isn’t being loving at all.  I know someone who temporarily went lesbian after leaving an abusive marriage.  While that is somewhat common, it obviously doesn’t overturn Romans 1 or the rest of the Bible.  The world – and her Christian parents — told her that Jesus was fine with it, but deep down she knew better and admitted it to me.  It was causing her great stress because she knew it was wrong, but most people didn’t have the guts to speak the truth to her.  I didn’t rant or condemn her or even raise my voice.  I just said, “You know that’s a sin, don’t you?”  And she emphatically agreed.

Nearly 35 years ago my wife, Julia, and I wrote the first Disciple Bible Study, an in-depth curriculum that eventually numbered four studies in all. Almost 3 million people around the world have taken at least one of the studies.

I took the study and taught it several times.  It was good, because it was before he went apostate.  [Side note: By the time they wrote the third study they were using obvious wolves in sheep’s clothing to undermine scripture.]

Thirty years ago our daughter Sarah shared with Julia and me that she is gay and that she had entered into a committed relationship. She came out to us when she was 27 years old. We never imagined this was anything that would touch our family. While I had never studied in depth the passages in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality, I felt the Bible was clear, and as a pastor and leader in the church I stood by what our United Methodist Book of Discipline said.

The Bible is quite clear, and he knows it.  It isn’t just a few verses and they aren’t unclear or unimportant.

  • 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.

Now, however, I was facing this matter as a parent. The night that Sarah shared her news with us, Julia and I talked, and we were immediately at peace with knowing that her homosexuality was not a result of her upbringing.

WARNING!  Note that his first instinct was, “What did I do wrong?!”  That’s the root of these  rationalizations about the Bible.  It may not have been anything they did.  It could have been abuse or molestation by someone else or just plain old sin.  Or maybe it was a relationship issue with the parents.  But their “revelations” about what the Bible “really” says are grounded in the utterly selfish motive to absolve themselves of parental guilt.  How shameful and unloving!

We had raised all four of our children in a loving, Christ-centered home. In one way or another, all of our children have devoted themselves to a life of faith and service in the church. Sarah heard a call to mission at a young age, and over the years she has served in United Methodist roles ranging from director of an inner-city community center to religious publisher. She is a lifelong member of the church.

Apparently he also never studied the passages about wolves in sheep’s clothing, wheat/tares, etc.

The young woman before us that night wanted to be loved and accepted, but she wasn’t a troubled, tortured soul. She was happy and whole, and Julia and I believed that her sexual orientation was how God had made her. That night we learned something new about our daughter, but we loved and cherished her just the same, if not more.

Oh, so she is happy with her sin.  Never mind.  Seriously, I’ve met over 1,000 felons while doing prison ministry.  Many have no remorse.

And he “believed” it was how God made her.  Great, throw in some blasphemy while you are at it and blame God for her sin.

Of course you still love your kids if they are sinners.  Lots of pro-LBTQX types think they are playing a trump card when they ask, “What if your child was LGBTQX?”  I am blessed that my children and their spouses are all hetero and committed believers, but I’d still love them if they weren’t.  But because I love them I’d no more affirm sexual perversions than I would other sins.

Still, I knew I had some work to do. I needed to reconcile my commitment to scriptural authority with loving and accepting my daughter.

Why yes, rationalization of the opposite of what the Bible teaches is very hard work!

Frankly, I was amazed at my lifelong ignorance about homosexuality. I had spent my ministry dealing mostly with the uses, misuses, and abuses of sex among heterosexuals. But I did not understand or worry about my energetic, popular youth fellowship leaders who never went out on dates. I was grateful for the Wesleyan Service Guild women, some of whom lived together and cared for each other for 50 or 60 years. I didn’t give any thought to the private lives they must have had or even the pain that their secrets must have inflicted.

Ah, so heterosexuals abuse sex but LGBTQX people don’t.  Check.

So I began my own journey. I reached out to other families with homosexual members, and I listened to their stories of struggle in the church. And I began a more in-depth examination of the Scriptures that address the issue of homosexuality. You may be surprised to know I hadn’t fully done my homework here, but the truth is, if you have a big-picture grasp of the Bible as I do, then you will understand just how insignificant these few passages are.

Bullshit.  They aren’t insignificant, and again, there are countless passages pointing to God’s ideals.

How can I say anything in the Bible is insignificant? Because not all passages in the Bible were created equal. For example, the books of the minor prophets, such as Malachi and Obadiah, can’t be compared to the power and significance of Genesis and Exodus. There is a reason many Bibles use red letters to set Jesus’ words apart: The color highlights their importance relative to the surrounding text.

What a wicked lie.  Jesus affirmed all of the Old Testament down to verb tenses and dots, and He authorized the New Testament.  It all turned out just as He wanted it to.  The bishop implies that lesser known sections aren’t true.  How Satanic!

So keeping this understanding in mind, I took each passage that addresses homosexuality and examined its context. I looked at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been used over the centuries to claim that homosexuality is a sin — the so-called “sin of Sodom.” The angry townspeople were eager to rape and humiliate the strangers who were visiting Lot.

Yep, and they persisted even after being literally blinded, which is why you should never give into the LGBTQX lobby.

But I think it is fairly easy to see that the sin was not homosexuality but rather the townspeople’s violent inhospitality to strangers. I say “easy,” because you don’t have to look beyond the Bible to understand this. The prophet Ezekiel identified it when he wrote: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus also implies that Sodom was guilty of ugly inhospitality.

Bzzzzt.  Ejector seat time.  This wolf knows there are other passages, such as in Jude and 2 Peter 2 that clearly show the “sin of Sodom.”  Did you catch how he didn’t refer to those and pretended they didn’t exist?  That’s because wolves — even those who write Bible studies — rely on biblical ignorance to make their case.

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

We know, of course, that the Holiness Code in Leviticus and Deuteronomy forbids homosexual acts between men. But we forget the context: This code was designed for the specific purpose of setting the Jews apart from the Canaanites. It was not intended as a universal morality. It was peculiar to the Hebrews — and to the times. It reflected one side of the constant tension in Judaism, as well as in all religions, between exclusion and inclusion.

Wrong.  He assumes you won’t read Leviticus 18 and note how the passage was clearly condemning the Canaanites.  A long list of sins is bookended  by God saying how He is judging them for what all people know is wrong.

The Apostle Paul does graphically list sins where women have sex with women, and men with men, but again, context is everything. Paul was familiar with only two kinds of homosexual activity: when wealthy Greeks would buy young boys as slaves and sexually exploit them, and when part of the Greek-Roman world would go to male and female prostitute-priests as a form of fertility or mystery cult worship. Neither of these ancient practices, of course, has any resemblance to the loving, faithful relationships that I witness in my family and among our family friends.

Double bzzzzt.  That’s wrong on many levels.

First, note how this wolf tips his hands and assume that the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in the writings!  That’s a common and Satanic trick of the “Christian” Left, where they quote scripture authoritatively whenever they think they agree with it but undermine it when they don’t like it.  He claims it was Paul’s alleged mistakes.  But that means scripture is wrong and the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved.  What else is wrong, and how does he know?

And he falsely assumes Paul didn’t know about those relationships.   What evidence does he offer for that claim?

The text couldn’t be more clear.  It refers to consensual relationships, not exploitive ones.  It also refers to men with men, not to men with boys.  So he tells a blatant lie when he says, “Paul was familiar with only two kinds of homosexual activity: when wealthy Greeks would buy young boys as slaves and sexually exploit them.”  The passage doesn’t mention boys, so Paul clearly knew at least one other kind of homosexual activity.  It is so plain, but he trusts that most people won’t read it.  They actually want to be misinformed so they can go along with the world.

There are also zero references to temples or prostitutes, let alone temple prostitutes.  And there are zero examples in history of lesbian temple prostitutes.  But none of that stops the bishop from repeating those fallacious sound bites.

Romans 1:26–27 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.

Fixating on those words also misses the larger point that Paul was simply trying to list every sin he could think of. He wanted to show that all of us have fallen short, that we are all sinners in need of the atoning grace of God. As I reflect on the list of sins, I know not a day goes by that I’m not in need of grace.

False.  Of course we are sinners in need of grace.  But homosexual behavior was Paul’s Exhibit A in the case that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  And the bishop is proving his point!  He is truly without excuse.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

But Jesus and his ministry concern me most.

You mean where He defined marriage as between one man and one woman?  And where he said there are just men and women?  Why do you deny that ministry?  And on the bishop’s standards, these count more because they are “red letters.”

Mark 10:6-9 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

Time and again, he deliberately focused on the marginalized.

Time and again He told people to repent.

The hatred and condemnation of others all seems to be the very opposite to both the action and the teachings of Jesus. He laid the groundwork for the church to accept Gentiles when he said, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.”

Of course Jesus said not to hate, but that’s just a pathetic ad hominem attack by the bishop.  We don’t hate LGBTQX people, we love them enough to tell them the truth.  We’ll share the Gospel with anyone: Murderers, adulterers, LGBTQX people, thieves, the greedy, etc.  But we offer it on God’s terms: Repent and believe.

Again and again Jesus placed kindness and acceptance over custom and social norms. “Love one another,” he commanded, “as I have loved you.” He also emphasized hospitality: “When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. And you will be blessed.”

If we are to be Christ followers, how can we reject the LGBT community in light of Jesus’ ministry?

False dichotomy.  You aren’t rejecting them, you are inviting them on the same terms as everyone else: Repent and believe!

And yet, make no mistake, I am not condoning sin.

Liar. That’s exactly what he is doing.

Nothing in my 70 years of ministry would lead me to believe that The United Methodist Church would or should divide over these few misunderstood passages of Scripture.

It is no coincidence that most of the pro-LGBTQX lobby also deny the authority of scripture, Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation, Jesus’ divinity, and more.

I am offering this message because, I believe that Jesus is Lord of the Bible, and all of his teachings direct us to create a loving and inclusive community of faith. I ask for your prayers for the church. Lift your voice in affirmation of our great tradition and help us to find a way forward to heal, and not divide.

But he is hypocritically dividing from people who disagree with him.  I’m fine with division.  The UMC should have split long ago.  Better yet, they should have ejected the wolves who lied at their ordination vows and/or apostatized later.

Christ beckons: “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love.”

If you love God and neighbor, you won’t lie to them about the Bible. Again:

  • 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.

There is no place to comment at the link and they disabled comments for the YouTube video.  Convenient, that.  I’d love to debate this wolf.  Think of the easy questions to destroy his arguments.  Just a sample from the Romans 1 section:

  • You said that one of the only two kinds of homosexuals Paul knew about involved exploitative relationships with men and boys.  Can you please point out where Romans 1 refers to boys?
  • You said that Paul didn’t know of other kinds of relationships.
    • What evidence do you have to prove that?
    • Even if Paul didn’t know of other types, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have known?
  • You mention temple prostitutes.  Please show where the text refers to them.
  • You imply that the lesbian relationships involved temple prostitutes.  Please show me anywhere in recorded history that lesbian prostitutes are mentioned.  I’ll wait while you Google it.
  • And so on.

Run, don’t walk, from any “Christian” Left group.

01d44-giphy285229.gif

Roundup

Roundup

2 Comments

Texas Republicans Pass Save Chick-fil-A Bill, Democrats Call it Bill of Hatred — because the truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.  C’mon, they are just tasty chicken sandwiches!  When you wonder why the LGBTQX lobby loses their minds over Chick-fil-A – which doesn’t discriminate against sexual deviants in hiring or in serving, but merely had a CEO donate to pro-family causes – remember that the men of Sodom persisted even when being literally blinded by God.

Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

Seriously, if God literally blinded you while you were sinning, don’t you think you just might stop for a few minutes to reflect on what you were doing?  Not these people.  They are most persistent.  Don’t bother trying to pacify them, because nothing short of your annihilation will work.

Eight Reasons We Should Avoid Christian Conferences — I’m not saying all conferences are bad, but I have zero interest in attending any.  Two of the biggest reasons I’m not a fan:

4. Do conferences unnecessarily promote celebrity-driven evangelicalism? I’m aware of small conferences that focus on topics or particular doctrines, but let’s be honest…most conferences are all about the celebrity speakers and celebrity musicians. Do we really think that’s healthy in the long term? Did not Christ gift to every church their own pastors and teachers? Does celebrity access diminish and even disregard reverence and listenability to local pastors? Furthermore, because virtually anyone has access to the sermons preached by our favorite celebrity preachers in virtually any form of media (video-streaming, podcasts, etc…), why is it necessary to see them in person if it’s not for the fanboyism of it?

7. In regards to women’s conferences, let’s be honest. They’re garbage. They are total, complete garbage. They are emotionalized, doctrinally-shallow, motivational seminars that – by and large – mature godly women don’t attend to begin with. These events are often designed to literally lead captive weak women (2 Timothy 3:6).

Surprising No One, “Revoice” Conference Pastor Comes Out As Queer — The title says it all.  Don’t trust those who work so hard to affirm LGBTQX desires.  Again, the men of Sodom wore themselves out groping for the door even though blinded  by God.

People donating to Kenneth Copeland or Jesse Duplantis are getting what they deserve: Nothing.  Doesn’t Copeland look demon possessed?  What kind of a greedy idiot do you have to be to fund these frauds?  Wait, I think I just answered my own question . . .

Oh, and Jesse said God told him he needed the plane.  Reason #1,074 not to go with the “God told me” crowd.

Best of the Bee

Archaeologists Discover Giant Pope Hat Worn By Apostle Peter | The Babylon Bee — Great send-up.  The notion that Peter was the first Pope is absurd on many levels.  You’d never get that from the Bible.

Rep. Jackie Speier shouts her abortion as Sen. Hirono exploits eighth graders — Guess what?  I don’t care if Molech-worshiping ghouls don’t feel guilty about murder.  It is still murder.  Then there is this anti-science, anti-logic nonsense where the Senator from Hawaii pretends that that women don’t already have children when they have abortions.  If they didn’t have children inside them, they wouldn’t have anything to abort!  Such obvious fallacies, yet our media and politicians play along.

“And I asked the girls in that group of eighth graders: how many of you girls think that government should be telling us, women, when and if we want to have babies, not a single one of them raised their hands,” she continued.

And another politician said, “When are these legislators going to give a shit about the baby once it’s born?”  See the graphic for all the things wrong with that stupid argument.

One more reason to dislike unions: American Airlines sues mechanics for 2,200 canceled, delayed flights .  This explains why I’ve had two American flights delayed for multiple hours on my last two trips.  They have great pilots, though!

Bible

Don’t be like King Hezekiah

1 Comment

Our society is decaying at an increasingly rapid rate.  The concept of “same-sex marriage” is younger than the cell phone, yet look how quickly and firmly it has taken hold in the Leftist culture.  And “transanity” has moved even more quickly, as even middle ground people are too fearful and/or indoctrinated to push back on things as evil and sickening as telling young children they may not really be their genetic gender.

But we Christians shouldn’t fall prey to that level of cowardice.  Sure, if we are older, then these things may not impact us directly.  But if we love our neighbors – which includes our descendants – we need to speak the truth even if it costs us and we need to fight for what is right.

King Hezekiah did a lot of good things, but at the end of his reign in Judah he foolishly showed off the country’s treasures to visitors from Babylon.  Isaiah the prophet chastised Hezekiah and said that eventually it would all be taken away by the Babylonians.  Hezekiah responded in a most selfish manner:

Isaiah 39:8 Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “There will be peace and security in my days.”

May God keep us from being selfish and complacent.

False teachers

Rachel Held Evans claims that the Bible “fails massively at getting to the point”

17 Comments

It would be true if she said that the Bible fails to get to her points – that is, her basic “Christian” Left views that God approves of LGBTQX perversions, abortion, coveting, egalitarianism, etc.  But the Bible doesn’t fail at all in what God wants to teach us.

The Domain for Truth has another review on her latest disingenuously titled book, “Inspired” — Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 6.  I admire SlimJim for reading it all so we don’t have to!  I’d read excerpts that Evans posted and analyzed them here.

The link notes how Evans, as usual, works overtime to undermine the authority of scripture.

It [the Bible] fails massively at getting to the point.

That is spoken like a non-Christian. Who could miss the point of the opening verse?  God created everything, so you better believe that you’ll be accountable to him — and the rest of this book tells you how to be reconciled to him.

The Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation (it isn’t just John 14:6, though that would be enough). What could be more clear? But a spiritually blind wolf like Evans can’t see that — and obviously doesn’t believe it.

And she is wildly pro-LGBTQX perversions, even though the Bible couldn’t be more clear and consistent about God’s views on sex.  Consider the following truths and how Evans’ perversion-affirming god teaches the opposite:

  • 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.

Even two out of three types of pro–gay theologians* concede those points, yet the “doubt-filled” Evans has zero doubts about affirming every sexual perversion in the LTBTQX spectrum.

She once again tips her hand that, despite her disingenuous book title, she absolutely does not think the Bible is the inspired word of God. She’s worse than a Bart Ehrman or a Richard Dawkins, as she says the same sorts of things about the Bible that they do.  But at least they are open about not being believers.

She also creates a straw-man argument where she pretends that we don’t think that different situations may require different actions.  Of course we know better.  An ectopic pregnancy may require an abortion to save the mother while the child will die either way. But wolves like Evans use that to dismiss truly universal truths that killing children for the other 99.9% of reasons is evil.

The Bible doesn’t fail at all.  It accomplishes just what God wants it to (Isaiah 55) and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3) — all things that Mrs. Evans and her followers desperately need!

As usual, run, don’t walk from wolves like Racist Held Evans.

*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.
Politics

Out of control censorship on Twitter. And Facebook. And . . .

10 Comments

So I got banned from Twitter for a week — plus a threat of permanent banning should I keep saying the same type of things — for this response to a business who had caved to the LGBQTX mob:

So saying that “trans” people have mental disorders gets you banned from our mainstream social media, but the endless hate spewed by Leftists is just fine.  We all know I could give endless examples just from the comments on one Donald Trump Tweet.

And Twitter has just been caught with evidence of shadow banning, where they don’t officially ban you but they ensure that only your followers can see your Tweets.  See Twitter Shadowban Test to see if it has happened to you (it is usually just those conservatives with lots of followers).  They were already busted by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas for claiming that was their model, and now there is a way to prove it for individual accounts.

And Facebook has been radically throttling back traffic on conservative sites.

And Apple still won’t put the http://www.gab.ai app in their store because of “hate speech” (by which they mean free speech, of course).

In other words, all of Big Tech is working overtime – and especially so since the 2016 election — to ensure that conservative speech is silenced.  These are just more reasons to support alternative platforms and stop feeding the beasts.  And not just because of censorship.  These other platforms are much, much better for privacy.

Replace Twitter with @getonGab http://www.gab.ai

Replace Facebook with MeWe.com

Replace Chrome (or whatever) with Opera.com

Replace Google search with DuckDuckGo.com

Do it now! I’ll wait here.  Fortunately WordPress hasn’t succumbed to censorship.

By the way, “trans” people most certainly have mental disorders.  See These People Are Crazy: The Other McCain.

Transanity truisms:

  • We all agree that something is wrong with “trans” people. Normal people say the mind is wrong, Leftists say it is the body.
  • If Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner really is a woman, then Karen Carpenter really was fat. If you are going to believe the nonsense that the mind trumps the body then you should be consistent.
  • Leftist pervert logic: Girls wanting bathrooms with just girls are haters, but boys who only want bathrooms with girls must be accommodated.

Those are facts, not hate. But the truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.

Christian worldview

The lies, slander and fallacies of faux-life “Christian” Leftist Rachel Held Evans

23 Comments

Welcome to visitors!  Please feel free to look around and read more.

Update: She took down her Twitter post, first claiming that she wrestles with doubts on abortion (read her Tweets below and see how “doubt-filled” she really is) and then saying there were too many threats (I read most of the comments and didn’t see one threat).  But I saved her Tweets for you here!

Update 2: I figured out why she deleted the Tweet.  Steven Crowder and others outed her racism.  She claimed she was misunderstood.  No, Rachel, the problem is that you were completely understood.

  • Internet: Here’s a racist pro-abortion statement by Rachel Held Evans.
  • Rachel: [Deletes the context]
  • Also Rachel: You took it out of context!
  • Me: I saved the context, which makes it much worse.

—–

False teacher Rachel Held Evans, who mocks the word of God for a living, had an Internet tantrum when she found out that Justice Kennedy was retiring.  It was one fallacious pro-abortion argument after another.  SJWs lie and project, and that’s what she did here, making numerous false statements and projecting her racism on others.  Here are the Tweets she deleted.

Thread: I’m pro-life by conviction, though my views on the legalities of abortion are complex, ever-evolving, & detailed elsewhere.

She starts off with a big lie.  It would have been a bad enough lie if she had stopped there, because her rabid support for Obama and Hillary and all things Leftist already demonstrate how pro-abortion she is.  But she goes on to make her views more clear.

That said, today I’ve been wondering if most pro-lifers have considered what overturning Roe v. Wade would look like in actuality…  First, it wouldn’t end abortion, which would likely remain legal in several states.

Yep, we’ve known that since 1973.  That should be consolation to the Leftists freaking out en masse yesterday who didn’t know it.  Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to kill your children up to their first breath and without anesthetic in most states.  Because love is love, right?  Pregnancy resource centers have long said that they’ll be needed even if abortion was made illegal.

Just like in the past, wealthy women would travel for abortions & poor women would resort to deadly Gosnell-style “back alley” clinics & home procedures….

Harsh truth: You are under no obligation to make it easier or safer for people to murder their children.  Of course I don’t want to see women harmed during abortions.  But I really don’t want to see the children slaughtered.

And note how this self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” views abortion as a luxury that only the rich will have.  She views child-killing as a necessity.

At least she acknowledged “Christian” Leftist Kermit Gosnell.  No, wait, she only did so in pretending that he was a “back-alley” abortionist.  Big lie.  He was as mainstream as could be and was protected by politically correct state officials.  They knew he ran a filthy clinic.  His crimes were killing children 60 seconds after the law allowed.  Fact: If he had killed them before they were out of the mother Mrs. Evans would have fully supported him.

…In addition, it’s important to understand that the abortion rate is highest in poor communities of color. The rate among black women is almost 5x that of white women and the rate among Hispanic women more than double…

That was her most laughable line.  I’ve written about the disproportionate rate of minority abortions so many times that I feared I would get carpal tunnel syndrome.  I usually note it as three times the rate of whites to be conservative, but she says it is five, so let’s go with that.  Black children being killed at five times the rate of whites via abortion and Hispanics at twice the rate is the only demonstrable and meaningful example of “institutional racism” there is, yet it’s the one that the “woke” and “non-racist” Left — including the “Christian” Left — aggressively fight for 24×7.  

These ghouls know that it kills minority children in a wildly disproportionate way, yet they want higher rates with taxpayer funding and they focus their anti-racism efforts on things like “micro-aggressions.”  It is a deadly self-parody.

…(Racism, income inequality, lack of access to affordable healthcare & contraception all contribute to the disproportionate rates. Most women who get abortions are already mothers who do so because they feel they cannot afford more children)…

Note how the “pro-lifer” believes that thinking you can’t afford more children is a good reason to have them killed.

…So when I see conservatives celebrating the “millions of lives” that will be saved if Roe is overturned I wonder if they realize a significant percentage of these lives would be in poor communities of color—communities this administration has actively oppressed…

Actively oppressed?  How?  By giving them jobs?  By increasing their wages? By giving them school choice?  By reducing their taxes?  By fighting for their rights to defend themselves?

Mrs. Evans, we know that we are saving minority lives.  Those of us who volunteer at and financially support pregnancy centers know exactly who our clients are.  We would review demographic data at board meetings!  We made special attempts to reach minorities!  You are the one fighting to kill these children.

“Christian” Leftists usually navel gaze and virtue signal about racial reconciliation while Christians are out doing more for race relations than they could ever dream of — just as a byproduct of spreading the Gospel.  If you really want to help race relations, do pregnancy center or prison ministry, where it is mostly whites serving mostly non-whites — sharing the Gospel and serving in love.  But Evans et al would rather sit behind their keyboards and call us racists.

…(If you think Donald Trump actually wants to see a population boom in poor communities of color you haven’t been paying attention! These are the people Trump describes as “infestations” & “breeders.” Just the mention of Hispanics at a rally elicited boos from his audience)…

I’m 99.99% sure that’s a lie.  I’ll bet that he said illegals, not Hispanics.   And it is a fact of history and basic common sense that illegals take jobs and suppress wages for low-income blacks.  You know, the ones you take for granted when pushing your open borders scheme to get more votes.  Side question: Why do Leftists like illegals more than black children?

…Meanwhile, congress is working to defund safety net programs that help mothers provide food, healthcare, and education to their kids.

Logical fallacy: Begging the question – that is, assuming what you should be proving.  Leftist giveaways have been the catalyst for broken families and destroying the black community.  The Left is responsible for separating children from parents with the easily predictable consequences of providing incentives for single motherhood.  The impact to society has been terrible: Generational poverty, crime, drugs, prisons, etc.

So when pro-lifers join Trump in showing disdain or indifference to the poor, to immigrants, & to people of color, no one’s going to believe they are interested in saving anything but hypothetical babies…

Liar.  Again, we know exactly who we are saving and who they are killing.  It is creepy how Evans gets more and more unhinged in wanting to see dead minority children and in projecting her dislike of them onto us.

…Indeed, much of the pro-life literature depicts white, blue-eyed, motherless babies against empty, pristine backgrounds precisely because it is easier to advocate for hypothetical, idealized “babies” than actual people…

Aaaand another lie she uses to justify killing actual minority people.  There are entire campaigns trying to reduce abortions in minority communities.  And does she mean common literature like this?  People have paid for billboards with these messages then pro-aborts protest over them.  Note the white skin and blue eyes.

black abortion

…My point is: I’m not sure pro-lifers realize that overturning Roe will not create the utopia they imagine. In fact, by aligning with Trump & the GOP, they are creating conditions infinitely worse for the mothers & children who would be most affected……So instead of celebrating, I hope pro-lifers will reject Trump’s racism and partner with progressives to create a “culture of life” by addressing healthcare, income inequality, racial justice, criminal justice reform, family leave policies, etc. We can find comm ground here…

Her foundational lie: “I’ll totally oppose abortion once we achieve utopia and there is zero demand for it.”  Uh, sure, so why don’t we legalize murder, theft, etc. until all the societal factors causing those things are fixed?  Let’s just keep ignoring original sin!

…All your big plans for “millions of saved lives” mean nothing when you show no interest in the actual life of a mom of three, living in an abusive relationship & unable to pay the rent, who can’t miss another day of work and has just seen a positive on a pregnancy test.

Once again, pro-abort Evans tips her hand in grand fashion.  If you have a challenging life, the solution is to kill your child.  That’ll fix everything!  And of course we do show interest in those women with our own time and money – though we aren’t obligated to just because we oppose child-killing.

Also, it’s great when crisis pregnancy centers give out free diapers, but please don’t cite this as holistic care for mother & child when it’s the systemic stuff that makes the difference. CPCs can’t address rising rent, unaffordable healthcare, poor family leave policies, etc.

That is one of her greatest slanders.  Pregnancy centers do much more than just give out diapers — though that is more than Evans does!  Remember that Evans is forever “giving” your money away like a good little “Christian” Left Marxist.  And centers always share the Gospel with anyone interested, which Evans doesn’t care about.

And there is no obligation for pregnancy centers to fix every problem in society.  Follow her reasoning: If pregnancy centers don’t completely fix all of your problems, they don’t have value and you need to be able to kill your child for any reason up to her first breath and without anesthetic.  That’s what Evans votes for and fights for.

But most centers are funded by donors (the center where I volunteered for 12 years and was on the board for 6 years refused government assistance because it would come with strings attached) and mostly staffed by volunteers.  Why don’t faux-lifers like Evans start their own pregnancy centers to do all the things they criticize the real centers for?  I know why.  (I admit that she couldn’t have volunteered at Care Net, because you must be an authentic pro-life Christian to do that).

—–

Mrs. Evans boo-hoo’d after deleting her Tweets and expressed her shock that anyone would say that she supports eugenics or racism.  But the Left – including the “Christian” Left – advocates for abortion for many reasons, and one of their core arguments is the “better dead than poor” motif. Their brand of eugenics is slightly softer than Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood – look her up), but it is just as deadly for the children who get killed.

Being poor wouldn’t justify killing toddlers, so it also doesn’t justify killing children who haven’t had their first breath. And the pro-aborts know that abortion disproportionately kills minorities, so their actions are racist.  To make things worse, most poor today live better than royalty did 200 years ago.  The pro-aborts’ worldview implies that 90% of the world would be better off dead.  But just listen to them tell you how Christian and kind they are.

—–

So once again the faux-lifers out themselves with their own rhetoric.  The number one priority for the Left — including the “Christian” Left —  is ensuring that we continue to slaughter thousands of children per day up to their first breath and without anesthetic – and in their own words and proposals, the more minorities, the better.  And they want more abortions with taxpayer funding.  And they insist that their “Jesus” approves of it.

Sexuality

The perfect response to trans(anity) arguments

2 Comments

Dan Phillips posted this on Twitter:

I just want to remind everyone that @SyeTenB had the solution to the whole “transgender” bathroom thing. One door marked XX, one marked XY.

I thought that was perfect.  It is simple and true and points to scientific facts that completely undermine the God-mocking nonsense of the Left. And you can disarm anyone with it. If someone is said to be “transitioning,” just ask, “From XY [or XX] to what?”

It puts you on the side of irrefutable scientific facts  and puts the burden of proof on the LGBTQX-affirming people.

And if they call you a homophobe/transphobe/etc., you are within your rights to say, “No, you’re just a pervert.”

Something is very wrong with transgender people. While some may think that is mean and politically incorrect to say, Captain Obvious says it couldn’t be more factual. If something wasn’t wrong, then why would they want to undergo a radical surgery and consume powerful chemicals to change themselves?

The question is whether the body is wrong or whether the mind is wrong. I suggest working on the mind part, which would be much less expensive and destructive (oh, and more God-honoring). It is sad to see people mutilate themselves in the hopes that it will make them happier. It is more sad to see their regret and how they are ostracized by the LGBTQX community in the same way that any ex-gay people are.

If you really love people, you will never encourage their trans desires.

 

 

 

 

 

Christian worldview, Favorites, Politics

Disingenuous Diversity

1 Comment

I originally posted this 10 years ago and am re-running it in light of the recent Google Goolag tantrums over a completely logical and factual analysis that actually supported what Goolag claimed to want.  But that wasn’t enough for the Orwellian types who can’t tolerate any discussion of their bigoted beliefs.

Corporate Diversity organizations are a joke.  Even a Leftist photographer I know had to concede how completely and ironically uniform they are (she was doing a photo shoot of them for a magazine).  Just as in HP, they were all middle-aged black females.  The exception at HP was a black middle-aged male, but he was gay, so in a sense they were still the same.  I felt sorry for them, knowing that at some point they’d realize the company had no use for them in anything that actually contributed to the success of the company.

Check out Gab if you want a site that doesn’t censor conservative viewpoints like Goolag, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. do.

diversity.jpgDiversity programs at businesses and schools tend to be disingenuous (lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity) and hopelessly mired in PC-land.  It is a shame, too, because if companies used them properly they could be fabulous recruiting and retention tools.

I believe in true diversity.  The groups I have managed have always been diverse, and my current group resembles the United Nations (except that we actually get things done).

I don’t aim at politically correct diversity.  I try to hire smart, hard-working, talented, team-oriented people.  Prima donnas need not apply.  By doing that in a color-blind way, I tend to end up with a broad representation of sexes, ages, religions, races, etc.

I am quite familiar with diversity programs and the politics behind them.  I represented the Christian employee network group at Compaq / HP and experienced some interesting things.  Corporations cave to threats of boycotts by the gay groups and do little to police them.  One “Pride” group at HP had a team building event to go to a drag queen contest.  Indeed.  It was published on the company’s intranet.

Of course, free sensitivity training was offered to anyone who might not think that a company funded employee organization based on sexual preferences was a swell idea.

We had a Christian employee network group with official “diversity group” recognition when we were still just Compaq.  The Diversity Manager complimented us regularly and considered us the model network group.

After the merger with HP, they approved all the other groups immediately but scrutinized the Christian group for a full year.  We met the criteria they had published better than any other group, so they finally approved us.  But someone complained and then our charter was revoked without discussion.  The explanation we got was tortured in its logic.  They obviously didn’t want to tell us the real reason behind it. They refused to meet with us to discuss the matter, even after I wrote Carly Fiorina.

A good friend of mine ran the Asian-Indian network group, which, as you can imagine, was primarily Hindu.  The company paid every year for them to have a Diwali celebration (the Hindu Festival of Lights, a religious event) on company property on company time.  When we asked why that group could have a religious festival when all we wanted was the ability to network and communicate, the Diversity VP acknowledged that she didn’t even realize it was a religious festival.

It all worked out fine, though.  To HP’s credit they let us use the email system for prayer requests and informal communications.  Many wonderful things were accomplished with that.  We could use conference rooms for lunch time Bible studies.  In some ways it was better to be an unofficial group than an official one, because that way we didn’t look too “corporate.”

It also gave us a great witness opportunity.  I found out later that the leaders were amazed that we didn’t protest and complain like other groups did.  We didn’t agree with their decisions, but we always responded graciously and didn’t disrupt the workplace.

The “Day of Silence” and “Diversity Week” programs at businesses and schools are a joke.  They aren’t about diversity at all.  They are aggressively promoting a particular worldview – and doing so with the power of the State in the case of the schools.  If they want to champion real diversity, how about inviting people with opposing views, such as those who view homosexual behavior as immoral yet think the homosexuals themselves should be treated with kindness and dignity and protected from abuse?  Now that would be real diversity.

I really encourage you to watch these videos and check out this site.  This is going on in public schools – elementary schools – today!

Christian worldview

The real reason that some “evangelicals” are switching to pro-gay theology: $$$

2 Comments

It obviously isn’t because of the Bible.  Only malicious wolves like Matthew Vines and/or gullible people who never read the texts in question can pretend otherwise.

Note that two of the three types of pro-gay theology* agree that the Bible describes the behavior as sinful, and the other type is easily refuted.  That’s why the “converts” never get into the scriptural details.  They just use a bunch of mealy-mouthed weasel words to gloss over their change.  But as Erick Erickson notes, it is really about the $$$.

One megachurch pastor in the Southeast I know has said his gay congregants are the best tithers and he, therefore, expressly avoids approaching any portion of the Bible that might hurt their feelings.

Yep.  Gays have lots of disposable income and love to donate to causes that further their agenda.  What better way than through a fake church?  One famous gay has dropped nearly half a billion dollars pushing his passion.  Remember, the men of Sodom persisted even after being literally blinded because of their sin.  You’d think that if God did that to you that you just might pause your sin for a few moments to think things over.  Not the LGBTQX lobby.  They are most persistent.

Eugene Peterson, author of the awful Bible paraphrase The Message, thought it was safe to take off his mask.  He had been a slippery pro-gay proponent for years but had fooled a lot of evangelicals.  He apparently figured that at age 84 and phasing into retirement that he could safely come out.  But within 24 hours he pretended to reverse course.  Here’s the short version:

Peterson: Sure, I’d perform a same-sex ceremony.

Lifeway: We’re going to stop selling your books.

Peterson: I was kidding!  When you stop selling my books, I was kidding.

Of course the “Christian” Left uses these “converts” as examples of why they are on the supposed right side of history.  “See?!  These alleged Bible-believers switched to our view!”  Yeah, the $$$ and trying to avoid being unpopular with the world had nothing to do with it.

Remember that churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” — i.e., the “Christian” Left — have nearly identical views to the world on a host of issues such as abortion, adultery, porn, etc.. It shows who their real father is.  They should consider these passages carefully.

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

Jude 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

*Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories.  They are all wrong, but for varying reasons.  Sometimes they overlap categories.  The point here is that the first two agree that the Bible describes homosexual behavior as sinful and the third is easily refuted.

  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 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.
  3. 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.
Bible, Sexuality

Problems with pro-gay theology

7 Comments

bible.jpg

Introduction

This post is a little long for a blog, 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.

And make no mistake: The LGBTQX lobby inside and outside the church is incredibly persistent.  As Christine noted in the comments, God gave them over to a debased mind because they would not acknowledge him.  Therefore, simply reasoning with them probably won’t persuade them.

Romans 1:28 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.

Keep in mind how the men of Sodom were blinded by God when trying to sin, yet they still groped for the door!  You’d think that if you were literally blinded while sinning that you just might stop, at least momentarily, to think about what you were doing.  But not them.

Genesis 19:11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

So keep speaking the truth in love, but don’t be shocked when people love the world more than God and the truth.  The “Christian” Left aggressively lobbies for taxpayer-funded, unrestricted abortions to the child’s 1st breath, so do not be surprised when they support any sexual perversion that Satan dreams up.

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. 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 you are committing a serious sin (Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice 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 by his grace God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.