Tag Archives: marriage

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.

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.

A secular case against “same-sex marriage”

Roxeanne asked socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage.  I’ll make a few points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage.  I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it.  The case against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is not that hard to make, but sadly too many conservatives don’t prepare themselves and fall prey to soundbites.  It is their fault that places like New York voted this in.

First, my basic points.  These are not complicated, folks.

1. By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation.  That is why the government is involved in these relationships.  Just because some marriages don’t produce children doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t have an interest in encouraging the relationships that by nature and design do produce children.

2. Only one man / one woman unions can provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal for any child.  This should be self-evident to any observer.

3.  “Marriage” was a word created to describe these unions.  LGBTQX people have a right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for society.  Please note: These people are welcome to get “married” in any number of apostate churches.  They can set up house and live together.  We are just saying that the government has no reason to affirm or regulate these relationships.

4. Saying that “marriage” applies to gays and lesbians isn’t a little different than the real definition of “a union of  a man and a woman,” it is the opposite.  It is saying that marriage is not just the union of a man and a woman, it is the union of anything we want it to be.

5. The arguments used to justify “same-sex marriage” support polygamy as well.  It isn’t a slippery slope argument, it is a cliff argument, where all the reasoning is already in place to justify other perversions of marriage.

6. “Same-sex marriage” has already impacted religious freedoms and will continue to do so.  This isn’t a religious argument per se, in that it isn’t saying “The Bible says ____,” but it is an argument about how government recognition of these unions pits the government against religions.

This is very important.  As noted here, the bill specifically says that “marriage is a fundamental human right,” but then goes on to give exemptions to religious organizations for having to recognize that right.  But how can that be?  What religion could have its views trump other fundamental human rights and justify, say, slavery in the U.S.?

Prediction: The law will stand but the religious exemption will get cut out.  The people who held out for the exemption behaved foolishly and naively.

7. These unions are bad for kids in many ways.  They inevitably result in 4-5 year olds being told how “normal” these relationships are.  They lead to adoption agencies closing rather than have to place children with gay or lesbian couples (that is premeditated child abuse).

8. Common sound bites about hospital visitation, estate taxes, etc. can be dealt with without undermining marriage.  For example, estate taxes are ghoulish.  You do not want the government to profit when you die!  So abolish them for everyone.

9. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about “rights.”  They have the same rights as everyone else: To marry someone of the opposite sex.  I’m not trying to be cute here, I’m just pointing out that if they don’t want to exercise that right we don’t have to make up a new one for them.

10. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about loving whomever they want.  Again, no one is saying they can’t love anyone they like.  Sadly, sound bites like that are repeated ad nauseum by people who should know better.We’re the ones staying out of their relationships.  They are the ones asking for government affirmation.

11. Don’t let them get away with comparisons to interracial marriages.  Skin color is moral neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.

Summary: While LGBTQX people are free to have these relationships, we are merely saying the government has no need to affirm or validate them.

—–

Aside from the secular arguments, if anyone wants to know what God says about marriage and these relationships, it is very clear.  He invented marriage.  Any church that disagrees with this isn’t a church, it is an organization trying to destroy the real church (that is, those who authentically follow Jesus).  They are actually doing you a favor in being so obvious.  Churches that promote same-sex unions are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing who took off the sheep’s clothing.  Hey, maybe they were getting too warm or something.

  • 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.

—–

Now, a few tidbits from Wintery’s piece (again, read it all!).  There are sources for all of this.   Emphasis added.

Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.

Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.

Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%

Look at the rates of violence in these relationships!  If these were anything other than politically correct relationships the media would be all over this.  I’d wager that these are a far bigger problem than “hate crimes.”

Rates of intimate partner violence

Intimate Partner Violence

Any advocates of SSM should be required to read these links:

Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:

Consider the health problems it causes, such as 40+ times higher rates of HIV and syphilis for gay men.  Again, if this was any other group it would be non-stop news.   But it doesn’t fit with the mainstream media messaging.

Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Note that the previous facts were about students, yet the schools go overboard encouraging this behavior in kids.

The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”

But they are “born that way,” right?

The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.

What?!  You mean Lady Gaga was wrong?!

Do Planned Parenthood and “comprehensive” sex ed programs teach this?

See New study finds that teens who lose their virginity are more likely to divorce.  Read the stats at the link.  It is quite compelling.  Somehow I doubt that the answer to the title question is “yes.”  So you better tell your kids, and kids, you should tell your friends.

Divorce is very costly, very painful and very avoidable.  Out-of-wedlock sex also leads to more divorce, diseases, unplanned pregnancies and abortions.  If groups like Planned Parenthood, public schools, false religious teachers and the media really had your long-term best interests at heart they would put this on the front page for weeks.  But that isn’t their agenda.  They are too busy telling kids not to have sex until they are ready — which, shockingly enough, is right about the time they really want to have sex!

From the commentary there (emphasis added):

This dovetails nicely with the previous studies that Mysterious C sent me that showed that, for men and women, the more sexual partners you have before marriage, the more unstable your marriage will be. See the related posts for more. If you’re still a virgin, like me, (and I’m in my mid-thirties now, and I’m saving my first kiss for my engagement), then there is nothing wrong with you. If you want a stable marriage, then you don’t have sex before you’re married. There are tons of virgins out there, and there is a huge difference in the quality of romantic relationships when both parties exercise self-control with physical touching.

Do you still think this issue won’t affect you?

Proponents of square circles (oops, I mean “same-sex marriage”) often mock their opponents by asking how it would hurt them.  Here’s another example of how the radical LGBTQXX agenda can impact you: Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired.  He wasn’t fired for anything he said at work, but because one person was offended that Turek had written separately that real marriage was the ideal.

Dr. Mike Adams explains how a gay manager at Cisco Systems got Dr. Frank Turek fired for opposing same-sex marriage. Adams explains what happened in a letter addressed to the President of Cisco.

Excerpt:

I want to bring to your attention a recent decision made by your HR team that I think does not reflect your leadership of Cisco.Dr. Frank Turek was fired as a vendor for his political and religious views, even though those views were never mentioned or expressed during his work at Cisco.

[…]In 2008, Dr. Turek was hired by Cisco to design and conduct a leadership and teambuilding program for about fifty managers with your Remote Operations Services team. The program took about a year to conduct, during which he also conducted similar sessions for another business unit within Cisco. That training earned such high marks that in 2010 he was asked to design a similar program for about 200 managers within Global Technical Services. Ten separate eight-hour sessions were scheduled.

The morning after completing the seventh session earlier this year, a manager in that session —who was one of the better students in that class—phoned in a complaint. It had nothing to do with content of the course or how it was conducted. In fact, the manager commented that the course was “excellent” as did most who participated. His complaint regarded Dr. Turek’s political and religious views that were never mentioned during class, but that the manager learned by “googling” Dr. Turek after class.

The manager identified himself as gay and was upset that Dr. Turek had written this book providing evidence that maintaining our current marriage laws would be best for the country. Although the manager didn’t read the book, he said that the author’s view was inconsistent with “Cisco values” and could not be tolerated. (Dr. Turek is aware of this because he was in the room when his call came in.) The manager then contacted an experienced HR professional at Cisco who had Dr. Turek fired that day without ever speaking to him. The HR professional also commended the manager for “outing” Dr. Turek.

This firing had nothing to do with course content—the program earned very high marks from participants. It had nothing to do with budget constraints—the original contract was paid in full recently. A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce.

You don’t see straight people complaining to HR about the political views of other employees / contractors at companies when those views aren’t expressed in their jobs.  And you definitely won’t see anyone getting fired over that.  In fact, you would be likely to be reprimanded or fired for even complaining.  Why are we letting the sexual preferences of 3% of the population have so much control?  Grow a spine, people!

I saw the Cisco article several places but like the Wintery Knight’s commentary:

And that leads me to the question that gay activists often ask supporters of traditional marriage: “how would allowing same-sex marriage hurt your marriage?”. And now we know the answer. Same-sex marriage would likely,  criminalize free speech that promotes traditional marriage over same-sex marriage, as it has in other countries with same-sex marriage, such as Canada. If you are a working husband, and you are responsible for a family, you will be under a constant threat of termination should your pro-marriage views become known to your colleagues and supervisors. Also, if you teach you children to favor traditional marriage, you may be persecuted by the state.

I would like to be able to provide for my family if I choose to marry, and I would like my children to favor traditional marriage over cohabitation, or any other arrangement, because traditional marriage is best for children who need a stable environment with two loving biological parents (if possible). But if it becomes the law that my view is “offensive” and “discriminatory”, then that would affect my marriage. Sometimes, I am very glad that I am not married, because getting married in a society that is offended by marriage takes a lot of courage. It seems to me that many Christians, especially the uninformed emotional ones who would rather read vampire fiction and Dan Brown than peer-reviewed research, prefer to redefine Christianity to mean “affirming destructive behavior so that you feel good and more people like you”.

Let Dr. Turek’s story be a lesson to all of you who prefer traditional marriage. Don’t allow your opinions on marriage to be linked to your true identity, because some sexually immoral people will try to separate you from your livelihood if they can. It’s no longer safe to express a preference for traditional marriage in this society. If you do it, you are taking chances. Just look at the vandalism and stalking of Prop 8 supporters. If you want children to grow up with a mother and a father in this society, then you are a marked target to those who put adult hedonism above the rights of children – including many Christians who enjoy singing and schmoozing in the church. Just this week I got an anguished e-mail from someone who blogs under his real name who is now in the cross-hairs for expressing his preference for traditional marriage in public.

We are in this situation because fake or wimpy Christians stood by and didn’t stand up for the obvious: Homosexual behavior is a sin and churches shouldn’t be affirming it.  If we really love people, in the sense of having their long-term best interests at heart, we won’t encourage them to participate in physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive behaviors that God plainly spoke against in his word.  And we won’t let the public schools poison the mind of 5 year olds by telling them how “normal” gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender behavior is and how they really can’t tell if they are boys or girls.

We aren’t trying to regulate the lives of gay people. They are free to have whatever adult relationships they like, including getting “married” in apostate churches.  We just disagree that the government needs to be involved in those relationships and to give civil rights status to sexual preferences.  But the LGBTQX lobby is so thin-skinned that they demand not just tolerance but acceptance.

Interesting facts on divorce rates

Hey single people: Want to increase your chances of divorce?  Then do one or more of the following:

  1. Have premarital sex
  2. Cohabitate
  3. “Marry” someone of the same sex
  4. Don’t attend church regularly and pray together — Some surveys will say that Christians have similar divorce rates compared to the rest of the culture, but if you drill deeper you’ll find that those who are serious about their faith and not just checking the “cultural Christian” box have much lower rates.

Female unions seem to have the highest divorce rates, followed by male unions, followed by opposite sex unions.

“For Sweden, the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the risk for heterosexual marriages, and that the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men.”

“For Norway, divorce risks are 77% higher in lesbian partnerships than in those of gay men.”  (The Norwegian data did not include a comparison with opposite sex couples.)

Do you know what else is bad for relationships? Premarital sex and cohabitation. And that’s not my opinion, those are the facts. (See the studies below) Either we are going to get serious about constraining our selfish behavior to protect children from instability, or worse, or children are going to suffer. When adults substitute their own selfish ideologies for God’s design for marriage, children suffer.

Lots of good arguments against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage”

A post over at Right Libertarian had some excellent responses to a pro-same-sex-marriage piece.  The author didn’t address the religious arguments the pro-SSM person used, so I took a shot at it.  Here’s a link to the original post.

– 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.

I list them that way to highlight that it isn’t just the “few” verses addressing homosexual behavior (as if what God says doesn’t count until He says it X times).

The Bible, that ancient book written by sheep herders and religious zealots, does indeed condemn homosexuality.

Note how they think they can completely dismiss the word of God with one fallacious sound bite. I’ll give them credit for this, though: At least they see that the Bible does condemn the behavior as sinful. Many Christians (the embarrassingly poorly informed and confused kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) will try to spin the verses to justify homosexual behavior and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”

whatever Paul said on homosexuality is all that matters (ignoring the fact that Jesus said nothing about it)

They use the argument from silence (Jesus didn’t mention child abuse or wife-beating, but presumably we can safely speak against those). He did say marriage was designed by God for one man and one woman, forever.

Paul hates the gays.

This is where you ask them what passages they are referring to and how they came to that conclusion. Expect silence and then a change of subject.

Then refer them to Romans 1. In one of the most “big picture” books of the Bible, Paul notes how people suppress the truth of God in righteousness by ignoring his existence — even though He has made it plan to them — and that God has then given them over to their sinful desires. Then he gives exhibit A: A clear explanation how men and women will abandon their natural functions to have homosexual sex. It should be noted that while that was Paul’s most extreme example, he then gives a laundry list of ways that we all rebel (i.e., he wasn’t just picking on the LGBTQ folks).

Paul addresses this indirectly throughout his letters (all commands about parenting and marriage involve one man / one woman marriages)

The point is, the Bible is a pick and choose smorgasbord of random commands, and to claim that we should legislate based on it is preposterous.

I only use biblical arguments when discussing this with self-proclaimed Christians. I don’t use it for public policy debates with non-believers.

9. Gay’s are icky!

I’ve seen the “ick factor” argument used more by the promoters of “gay marriage” than by its opponents. It is clever on their part to avoid defending some inconvenient problems with their position.

Gay sex is indeed icky. There is a reason people spend billions on toilet paper, diapers, wipes, etc.: People like to keep feces either inside their body (temporarily) or as far away from it as possible. So if someone could force a straight person to have anal sex, I’d expect the straight person would not only want to use a condom but would beg for multiple full body condoms.

HIV and syphilis rates that are over forty times the average are also icky, but that factoid from the CDC is politically incorrect. Therefore, you don’t hear a lot about it — unless you propose to cut funding for these non-gay diseases, in which case you are an awful homophobe.

Those aren’t the reasons to oppose SSM, but they are perfectly valid topics when discussing the LGBTQ agenda.

“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.“ Straight from the horse’s mouth. Faith is based on nothing. By the transitive properties of common sense, arguments from faith are based on nothing.

Another quote from someone who hasn’t studied the Bible. Why didn’t the author reference the 13 Gospel presentations from the book of Acts, or 1 Peter 3:15, or many other passages, which all rely on arguments from reason and evidence? It is a classic case of reading a verse out of context. Juries don’t see the crime in progress, but they can gain assurance from the evidence — just like Christians do.

It really doesn’t. Adam married Eve, so, sure, the first couple out the gate was your traditional all-nude, constructed from dust and ribs hetero couple. After that, things get wonky.

The Bible is a thoroughly authentic book, recording the failures and consequences of everyone, including its heroes. That doesn’t mean it approves of its records.

And just because God’s design for marriage was for one man and one woman doesn’t mean people have to get married. Paul made it very clear that singleness was an option, and for him, a preference.

I love Bible lessons from people who have never seriously studied it.

The leap from homosexual marriage to bestiality isn’t a slippery slope, it’s a jump over the Grand Canyon.

The bigamy / bestiality / incest argument isn’t primarily a slippery slope (though, btw, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies). It is a “cliff” argument, where the arguments for one thing (same-sex marriage) simultaneously support the others. The slippery slope only comes into play because it takes a little longer for society to slide down the moral decline and tolerate / accept the other behaviors.

False teacher fallacy-fest on oxymoronic “same-sex marriage”

It is hard to believe that false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie could cram this many fallacies into one little post, yet here we are.  In one of his seemingly never-ending perversions of scripture, he insists that Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself requires state-sanctioned endorsement of un-biblical sexual preferences.

Faith leaders from across are showing their support for freedom to marry, in large part because of the simple message that we all should strive to treat others as we would wish to be treated.

1. “Faith leaders” is code for false teachers — those who teach the opposite of the Bible and are so homophobic that they have a greater fear of being unpopular with the gay lobby than they do with the God they claim to worship.  Chuck uses this word game reflexively, where he implies that just because more than one “religious” person is for something that they are a majority or have biblical support for their position.

2. People already have “freedom to marry” anyone they like — of the opposite sex — because that’s what marriage was and is.  Opposite sex couples, by nature and design, produce the next generation, and only they can provide a mother and a father to a child.

And even those freedoms have some restrictions, such as age and the “one per customer” requirement (though Chuck’s position implicitly supports polygamy).

3. The golden rule obviously has limitations.  If I wanted others to be able to use heroin just because I want to use heroin that wouldn’t be a reasoned use of the term.

4. It ignores the consequences of providing civil rights for sexual preferences: The harm done to small children who will now be taught how “normal” homosexual, bisexual, transgender and whatever-comes-next behavior is, business owners forced to abandon their religious principles, adoption agencies closing, etc.

“As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I preach about God’s extravagant welcome… that God excludes no one and welcomes all.

Yes, that is what his “church” teaches.  As usual, he twists words.  Real Christianity really is open to all — all those who repent and trust in Jesus, that is.  But it is exclusive in that you must come to God on his terms.  Chuck’s false church gets it backwards, teaching that everyone gets in whether they want to or not, or that all religions are equally valid paths to God.

As parents, Liz and I want our daughters to honor the golden rule – that timeless truth that we should treat others as we wish to be treated – and for us that includes making sure gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry and raise a family just as we have.  We dream of a day when all are equal before the law.”

5. Chuck’s wife is an atheist, by the way.  Apparently evangelism isn’t his strong suit.  Chuck takes his 6 yr. old daughters to gay pride parades.  You’d think that at least his wife would have the sense to prevent that.

6. Gays and lesbians, by nature and design, cannot create a family.

7. Chuck falsely states that gays and lesbians can’t marry, as if the law says they can’t go to any number of apostate churches, like his, and get married.  But he isn’t asking for that, he is asking for government recognition of these unions.  His church’s #1 appeal seems to be seeking Federal recognition of the fraction of a fraction of these folks who want this government recognition (i.e., the few who want to get married out of the 2-3% who are gay/lesbian).

8. Chuck ignores bisexuals. Why is he so bigoted and hateful?

9. As noted before, they are equal under the law.  They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

10. Hey, I wonder if Chuck & Co. will take their “golden rule” sermons to the Middle East?  If they think the U.S. culture is so unloving, they’ll really have some harsh words for Muslims.

—–

Don’t be fooled by sound bites, folks.  The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  If you really love people, including LGBTQ folks and those impacted by these laws, then you’ll have all of their long term best interests at heart.  You won’t put your comfort and popularity above the truth.

Don’t be a coward on this issue.  Don’t let false teachers steal and distort the “golden rule” or anything else from the Bible.  Stand up for the truth and for what God really says.

False teacher fallacy-fest on oxymoronic “same-sex marriage”

It is hard to believe that false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie could cram this many fallacies into one little post, yet here we are.  In one of his seemingly never-ending perversions of scripture, he insists that Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself requires state-sanctioned endorsement of un-biblical sexual preferences.

Faith leaders from across are showing their support for freedom to marry, in large part because of the simple message that we all should strive to treat others as we would wish to be treated.

1. “Faith leaders” is code for false teachers — those who teach the opposite of the Bible and are so homophobic that they have a greater fear of being unpopular with the gay lobby than they do with the God they claim to worship.  Chuck uses this word game reflexively, where he implies that just because more than one “religious” person is for something that they are a majority or have biblical support for their position.

2. People already have “freedom to marry” anyone they like — of the opposite sex — because that’s what marriage was and is.  Opposite sex couples, by nature and design, produce the next generation, and only they can provide a mother and a father to a child.

And even those freedoms have some restrictions, such as age and the “one per customer” requirement (though Chuck’s position implicitly supports polygamy).

3. The golden rule obviously has limitations.  If I wanted others to be able to use heroin just because I want to use heroin that wouldn’t be a reasoned use of the term.

4. It ignores the consequences of providing civil rights for sexual preferences: The harm done to small children who will now be taught how “normal” homosexual, bisexual, transgender and whatever-comes-next behavior is, business owners forced to abandon their religious principles, adoption agencies closing, etc.

“As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I preach about God’s extravagant welcome… that God excludes no one and welcomes all.

Yes, that is what his “church” teaches.  As usual, he twists words.  Real Christianity really is open to all — all those who repent and trust in Jesus, that is.  But it is exclusive in that you must come to God on his terms.  Chuck’s false church gets it backwards, teaching that everyone gets in whether they want to or not, or that all religions are equally valid paths to God.

As parents, Liz and I want our daughters to honor the golden rule – that timeless truth that we should treat others as we wish to be treated – and for us that includes making sure gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry and raise a family just as we have.  We dream of a day when all are equal before the law.”

5. Chuck’s wife is an atheist, by the way.  Apparently evangelism isn’t his strong suit.  Chuck takes his 6 yr. old daughters to gay pride parades.  You’d think that at least his wife would have the sense to prevent that.

6. Gays and lesbians, by nature and design, cannot create a family.

7. Chuck falsely states that gays and lesbians can’t marry, as if the law says they can’t go to any number of apostate churches, like his, and get married.  But he isn’t asking for that, he is asking for government recognition of these unions.  His church’s #1 appeal seems to be seeking Federal recognition of the fraction of a fraction of these folks who want this government recognition (i.e., the few who want to get married out of the 2-3% who are gay/lesbian).

8. Chuck ignores bisexuals. Why is he so bigoted and hateful?

9. As noted before, they are equal under the law.  They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

—–

Don’t be fooled by sound bites, folks.  The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  If you really love people, including LGBTQ folks and those impacted by these laws, then you’ll have all of their long term best interests at heart.  Don’t be a coward on this issue.  Stand up for the truth and for what God really says.

Roundup

Answering the tough questions about opposing “same-sex marriage” – some simple and effective talking points: – Hat tip: that superior source for apologetics and pro-family information, the Wintery Knight

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.

Some sample Q&A.  Learn these easy answers and stop being silent on this key issue.

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

Sharks Are Not Misunderstood Dolphins, and Islam Is Not a Religion of Peace – Kevin DuJan from Hillbuzz is writing for the American Spectator now.

No matter how many times the delusional fools in the American media try to convince you otherwise, sharks are not misunderstood dolphins, and Islam is not a religion of peace.

I think that even the media knows this, on some level, because I’ve noticed that few journalists ever cover Islamic terror attacks the way they’d report on other murder sprees and tragedies committed by non-Muslims.

In the case of the latter, great effort is made to explain precisely why someone like Jared Lee Loughner picked up a gun, killed six, and injured a dozen more in his assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  His parents, friends, teachers, distant relatives, acquaintances, and kindergarten teacher, and a kid who sat next to him for an hour and a half on the ride to summer camp fifteen years ago, are all scrutinized for clues into his behavior, then blamed for being bad influences on him.  The media stokes an abusive outrage against these people — the parents in particular — for not catching the warning signs that could have prevented these murders.  Simultaneously, the media and the left join together in politicizing the tragedy, invoking Rahm Emanuel’s corollary to the Alinsky Rules for Radicals that no good crisis should go to waste.  This means that in addition to the people a murderer like Loughner actually knew, the entire conservative movement in this country must also be held responsible for this single man’s actions, including peopleLoughner never met, spoke to, or even knew much about, like Governor Sarah Palin.

When a Muslim commits an act of mass-murdering terrorism, in contrast, the left does not camp out in front of the shooter/assassin/bomber’s home and scrutinize every person he ever in his life came in contact with and blame them all for his actions.  Instead, the media personalities report on acts of terrorism the way they do shark attacks.

Obamacare wavier count: 729 organizations, including many unions, plus 4 whole states (that, coincidentally, the President needs to win re-election).  If the unicorn-rich bill was so swell, why all the waivers?  And is the media aggressively researching the connections to the politically connected companies and why they are getting waivers?

Joseph Smith, false prophet – Glenn has a great series on the many failed prophecies (62 at last count) of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.  Failed prophecies = failed prophet, i.e, don’t follow him.

Pro-gay groups upset that supermarket “censors” US magazine with Elton John, his gay lover and their surrogate child – only they still sold the magazine, they just covered the picture to protect children.

I saw that at the grocery store last night.  How disgusting.  Deliberately bringing a child into a motherless, perverse relationship.  Such narcissism and selfishness on behalf of Elton and those who are so thin-skinned that they have to force their views on little children.

From the Your President Thinks You Are Stupid category: He has raised discretionary spending 84% and is “committing” to cutting it by less than 1%, and you are to believe that he’s a cost-cutter.  Check.

Miracle of life video – highlights some crucial scientific facts about the unborn, namely that they are human beings from conception.

Reducing poverty

How can we win the war on poverty? This is a very important and not-that-complicated lesson.  The greatest and saddest irony is that those most vocal about injustice and reducing poverty are the ones who caused the problem to begin with: The theological liberals like false teachers Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistributionWallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  They continually advance programs that make the problems worse.  They teach the opposite of what God’s word said on human sexuality and we see the devastating consequences every day.

And it isn’t just poverty.  I see the impacts of this in prison ministry and pregnancy center ministries as well.  The liberal policies increase the number of victims and are the opposite of “social justice.”

What could be the problem? Well, think of welfare as a cash payment given to women who have have babies with men who they chose knowing that those men were not interested in becoming fathers or husbands. Women are having sex with men and having babies with men who have not married them and have no intention of marrying them. And the government is paying them to do this. The government is paying them to oppose chastity. The government is paying them to avoid courting. The government is paying them to avoid chivalry. The government is paying them to avoid marriage.

False teachers revel in disobeying God’s commandments

This is classic:  False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is so ignorant and/or rebellious of the Bible that he is not only unequally yoked with other other religions but he rejoices over others doing it.  See Chip in to Buck Intolerance!

IFYC seeks to make interfaith cooperation a social norm and builds mutual respect and pluralism among young people from different religious traditions by empowering them to work together to serve others.

What does the word of God say?

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? (2 Corinthians 6:14–15, ESV)

To make it better Chuck the race-baiter once again pretends to care about unity and to oppose those who would divide us.  Uh, didn’t Jesus say something about how He would be divisive?  Probably another one of those pesky passages Chuck ignores or hasn’t even read:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39, ESV)

Of course we should be respectful to others (1 Timothy 3:15-16, for example, another passage Chuck is unfamiliar with because it involves sharing the real Gospel).  But we aren’t to minister with them as if they are equally valid paths to God.

Many people only think the unequally yoked passage involved marriage but it applies to ministries as well.  And if Chuck married his atheist wife after he became a (fake) Christian, then he violated that command as well (if he married her before claiming to be Christian then he’s doing the right thing by staying with her).

Roundup

Looks like the Kairos Prison Ministry weekend for October is a “go,” as they got enough volunteers.  Looking forward to the training starting this Saturday with the regulars plus some new volunteers!

I am not making this up: Be sure to subscribe to Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ Sojourners magazine — you know, the “evangelical Christian” publication — so you can get a free copy of a Gandhi poster.  Yeah, Jesus was all about promoting other religions.  I suppose the bright side is that the fakes aren’t even trying hard to disguise themselves anymore.

False teacher fallacy-fest on Prop 8: Fake Christian Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie teaches the opposite of Jesus and the Bible at nearly every turn but really out does himself with his bit about how “Prop 8 Was Incompatible With Christianity; Court Decision A Victory For All God’s Children.”

The Wintery Knights says that Women should read The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.  Anyone read it?  Comments?

How to kill a church, Episcopalian style – yep.  They followed this advice to the letter.  If your business lost 60% of market share (which is roughly what they did as they went apostate) then lots of people would get fired.

Wow, even the NY Times can see how un-scientific people like PZ Myers are.

MUST-READ: FBI records show Howard Zinn was a communist – yep.  And watch how many theological Liberals worshiped the guy.

47% of Gay Couples Have “Sex Agreements” – Only 45% Monogomous: Study – some tidbits:

SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Forty-seven percent of gay couples in a recently published study said that they had “sex agreements” with their partners, which clarify how often and in what circumstances they are permitted to have sex with others. Only 45% said that their relationships were monogamous, while another 8% disagreed about whether their relationship was “open” or exclusive, according to an ongoing study by the Center or Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University.

The Gay Couples Study said that the couples interviewed typically put a positive spin on “open” relationships, with three out of four participants describing non-monogamous agreements as “positive” because it eliminates the need to lie to one’s partner.

Lying = bad, sex with other people = good.  Check.

The authors also claimed that, “we found that couples make sexual agreements because they want to build a strong relationship rather than for HIV protection.”

Yeah, nothing strengthens a relationship like having sex with others.

The study’s authors note that examining homosexual relationships is important because “previous research shows that gay and bisexual men in relationships engage in substantially higher rates of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with their primary partners than do single men with their casual partners.”

Anal intercourse and other forms of homosexual behavior are associated with a variety of diseases and syndromes, including high rates of sexually transmitted diseases such AIDS, syphilis, and hepatitis, which homosexuals suffer at rates many times higher than the general population.  It is also associated with damaged rectum linings and a variety of anal and intestinal diseases that were once known in the scientific literature as “gay bowel syndrome,” until the term was dropped following pressure from homosexual activists.

The New York Times, writing about the study in January, before its release, noted that the study tends to vindicate those who have warned that homosexual “marriage” will lead to a redefinition of the institution itself, destroying its traditional meaning.

The rate of HIV with gays is 44 times that of the rest of the population, and the syphilis rates are similar.  If this were any other sub-group the media would be all over it.  Instead, we get crickets chirping.  Political correctness can be deadly.

Normally I wouldn’t find this that amusing, but, for the first time in my life, I did this very thing the other day.

Digg This

Roundup

I love polar bears.  My all-time favorite zoo exhibits are those of the polar bears at the Tulsa and Central Park zoos.

But if you’ve ever seen this photo, please know that it was Photo Shopped and used to manipulate you.  Polar bear figures are up, but thanks for your concern.

Ironically, the photo was originally used in a piece preaching about how assaults on climate science are really bad.  Seems to me that their worst assaults have been their self-inflicted frauds.  Hat tip: Red State

P.S. The false-gospel preachers over at Sojourners used a similar picture and won an award for their errors.

Terrific link of responses to (alleged) Bible discrepancies — got this from Lone Wolf Archer — thanks!  I added it to the Apologetics links to the right as well.

Of all the challenges to a Christian’s faith, surely one of the most troubling in this day and age is skepticism’s charge that the Bible is filled with various discrepancies and contradictions. If true, such a charge (which is occurring with increasing frequency) certainly would serve to negate the inerrancy and inspiration of God’s Word. It is a simple matter for an unbeliever to hurl a barrage of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond quickly and effectively. This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered adequately via a “quick wave of the hand,” but instead require in-depth, painstaking research in order to craft a reply that can dismantle each one on a case-by-case basis.

Many people will mention concerns about all the “discrepancies” in the Bible but if you just ask politely, “What are your top 3?,” they’ll glaze over.  They’ve just heard it so many times they take it as truth.

Or they might have a specific objection from the Big Book of Atheist Sound Bites or something that is an authentic concern for them.  The test there is to give a thorough explanation.  If they concede valid points and seem to reconsider their overall stance, then keep engaging them.  If they can’t refute your points and just jump to the next objection, then it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.

William Lane Craig reponds to the arguments of the New Atheists

Some beautiful thoughts on Christian marriage by Stan.

Your organs aren’t really yours — So, are you comfortable letting the government decide when you are done with your organs?

Summary of recent thoughts on Arizona’s illegal immigration law:

  • From the “I can’t believe I have to explain this” category, the law doesn’t discriminate against Hispanics, it discriminates against criminals.  And that is the good kind of discrimination.
  • Most of the critics don’t understand the law at all and make all sorts of false claims about it.
  • It was a brilliant move on Arizona’s part: Both current and future illegal aliens will go to other states whether the law is enforced or not.
  • Hey states boycotting Arizona: Are you volunteering to take all the illegals yourselves?  Arizona would love that.  Let them know where to send them.
  • Challenge for those protesting the law: Go to Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter) without documentation and demand free food, clothing, education and health care.  I’ll wait here.
  • Hey Los (Phoenix) Suns: Are you offering free admission, t-shirts and concessions to everyone?  Why not, are you Nazis or something?
  • Do Jim Wallis and other false gospel-teaching Sojourners writers care if people plagiarize their work?  After all, it doesn’t really “belong” to the authors, does it?  Shouldn’t they have to share with anyone and everyone who wants it?
  • Amazingly, even with the media distortions about what the bill really says, 49% of Democrats say they’d favor a similar law in their states.  Those racists!

More neo-Darwinian tautologies (“Neo-Darwinian evolution is true, or Neo-Darwinian evolution is true”).  Just more bedtime stories they give until they can think of a better one.

I wish I had a nickel for every statement of evolutionary certainty that later had to be dropped. Carl Zimmer’s recent piece on how eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved quotes Eugene Koonin as stating that “it is certain” that a long time ago, in a warm pond far far away, two cells (an archaea and a bacteria) symbiotically merged to form the first eukaryote. The rest, as they say, was history, as from that humble eukaryote sprung everything from the trilobite to the tyrannosaurus.

This is too easy. Now, less than a year later, evolutionists have switched it round yet again. New ground-breaking research, published in the elite journal Nature, now says the fusion story is out and common descent is in.

For you baseball fans, here is Will Ferrell’s minor league pitching debut.