What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
by Matt Slick
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
******************
1. All Bible quotes are from the NASB Bible.
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality
Christianity and Homosexuality
by Matt Slick
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.
In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.
The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.
What does the Bible say?
The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,1 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.
Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?
In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.
The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.
Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."
Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.
Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?
Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.
In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.
"Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
"But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).
You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.
Objections Answered
1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.
In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.
2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.
If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.
3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.
There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.
Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.) The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
http://www.carm.org:80/christianity/christian-issues/christianity-and-homosexuality
2009/05/29
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.
1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=7 © 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.
1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=7 © 2009, All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com
Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church
Examples of Apostasy in the Christian church
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
Following is a list of examples of church that claim to be Christian who are adopting unbiblical ideas. Note: individual churches do not represent denominations.
Changing the Bible to suit gender-neutral wording.
This has crept into the church periodically in the last 30 years. Due to pressure from the secular society, some Christian based Bible publishers are offering gender-neutral Bibles. This is sad. Is God's word any less true because it is not gender-neutral? Should Christians change God's word to suit the unbeliever? No and no.
Metropolitan Community Church which openly approves of homosexuality.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on homosexuality)
"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided Monday to undertake its first major study on whether to endorse the morality of homosexual relationships...The Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of Woodside, N.Y., said she supports greater acceptance of gay church members and clergy. "It is time to send a message that we are a welcoming church, in our clergy as well as our pews," she said," (Associated Press Online, 08/13/2001, Lutherans to Study Homosexuality).
"The church currently allows homosexual clergy if they practice celibacy." (New Bishop for Evangelical Lutherans, ELCA, Associated Press Online, 10/06/2001.)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on evolution)
The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation. (http://www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html)
The Episcopal Church (woman bishop to oust conservative priest)
"An Episcopal Church committee has backed efforts by Washington's acting Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon to oust a conservative priest. A nine-member panel of clergy and laity said Dixon followed church law when she rejected the decision of the Christ Church vestry to hire the Rev. Samuel Edwards and ordered him to leave by May 25. Edwards refused, and continues to conduct services and occupy the rectory," (Religion News in Brief, Associated Press Online, 09/27/2001),
The Mennonite Church (on homosexuality)
"After nearly two decades of negotiation, the nation's two largest Mennonite denominations overwhelmingly approved a merger Thursday that creates the 125,000-member Mennonite Church USA....Many delegates expressed mixed feelings about the new membership guidelines, under which the church will not recognize same-sex marriages. Individual congregations and regional conferences will decide whether homosexuals will be allowed as members. (Two Mennonite Groups Approve Merger, NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jul 05, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The Presbyterian Church United States of America (on homosexuality)
"In a closely watched case, the highest court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) refused to rule Tuesday on whether a homosexual man is eligible to serve as a church elder. The court said the dispute surrounding Wayne Osborne had become moot because the First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Conn., had installed another group of elders," (Presbyterian Court Sidesteps Ruling; Ky., Dec 04, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Church of Christ (on homosexuality)
"The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, Jun 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Methodist Church (on homosexuality)
"The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy. (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX).
In contemporary culture, homosexuality is gaining ground and acceptance. This should never bleed over into the Christian church. The fact that homosexuality is even in question in some denominations is a definite sign of apostasy since homosexuality clearly contradicts the plain teaching of scripture that homosexuality is a sin: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Unfortunately, too many denominations are listening to the false gospel of the world and becoming secularized. They need to repent and stand on God's word, whether it is popular or not.
Home | Contact | Publications | Online Schools | Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error | Statement of Faith
http://www.carm.org/christianity/-church/examples-apostasy-christian-church
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
Following is a list of examples of church that claim to be Christian who are adopting unbiblical ideas. Note: individual churches do not represent denominations.
Changing the Bible to suit gender-neutral wording.
This has crept into the church periodically in the last 30 years. Due to pressure from the secular society, some Christian based Bible publishers are offering gender-neutral Bibles. This is sad. Is God's word any less true because it is not gender-neutral? Should Christians change God's word to suit the unbeliever? No and no.
Metropolitan Community Church which openly approves of homosexuality.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on homosexuality)
"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided Monday to undertake its first major study on whether to endorse the morality of homosexual relationships...The Rev. Ann Tiemeyer of Woodside, N.Y., said she supports greater acceptance of gay church members and clergy. "It is time to send a message that we are a welcoming church, in our clergy as well as our pews," she said," (Associated Press Online, 08/13/2001, Lutherans to Study Homosexuality).
"The church currently allows homosexual clergy if they practice celibacy." (New Bishop for Evangelical Lutherans, ELCA, Associated Press Online, 10/06/2001.)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church (on evolution)
The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may actually have used evolution in the process of creation. (http://www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html)
The Episcopal Church (woman bishop to oust conservative priest)
"An Episcopal Church committee has backed efforts by Washington's acting Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon to oust a conservative priest. A nine-member panel of clergy and laity said Dixon followed church law when she rejected the decision of the Christ Church vestry to hire the Rev. Samuel Edwards and ordered him to leave by May 25. Edwards refused, and continues to conduct services and occupy the rectory," (Religion News in Brief, Associated Press Online, 09/27/2001),
The Mennonite Church (on homosexuality)
"After nearly two decades of negotiation, the nation's two largest Mennonite denominations overwhelmingly approved a merger Thursday that creates the 125,000-member Mennonite Church USA....Many delegates expressed mixed feelings about the new membership guidelines, under which the church will not recognize same-sex marriages. Individual congregations and regional conferences will decide whether homosexuals will be allowed as members. (Two Mennonite Groups Approve Merger, NASHVILLE, Tenn., Jul 05, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The Presbyterian Church United States of America (on homosexuality)
"In a closely watched case, the highest court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) refused to rule Tuesday on whether a homosexual man is eligible to serve as a church elder. The court said the dispute surrounding Wayne Osborne had become moot because the First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Conn., had installed another group of elders," (Presbyterian Court Sidesteps Ruling; Ky., Dec 04, 2001, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Church of Christ (on homosexuality)
"The United Church of Christ set up a $500,000 scholarship fund for gay and lesbian seminarians Friday and urged wider acceptance of homosexuals by other denominations." (United Church Makes Gay Scholarship, CLEVELAND, Jun 16, 2000, AP Online via COMTEX).
The United Methodist Church (on homosexuality)
"The supreme court of the United Methodist Church was asked Thursday to reconsider the denomination's ban on gay clergy. (Church court of United Methodists asked to decide on gay clergy ban, NASHVILLE, Tennessee, Oct 25, 2001, AP WorldStream via COMTEX).
In contemporary culture, homosexuality is gaining ground and acceptance. This should never bleed over into the Christian church. The fact that homosexuality is even in question in some denominations is a definite sign of apostasy since homosexuality clearly contradicts the plain teaching of scripture that homosexuality is a sin: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Unfortunately, too many denominations are listening to the false gospel of the world and becoming secularized. They need to repent and stand on God's word, whether it is popular or not.
Home | Contact | Publications | Online Schools | Support CARM | Copying and Linking | Report an error | Statement of Faith
http://www.carm.org/christianity/-church/examples-apostasy-christian-church
2009/05/27
Blasphemy: Christ and the Buddha as sentai power rangers
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?"
Answer: The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).
http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html
What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"
Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?
Question: "What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?"
Answer: Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describe themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.
The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.
In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”
After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.
The Bible calls all such gender distortion sin. Transgenderism is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder; it is rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.
http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html
Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
Question: "Is it possible to be a gay Christian?"
Answer: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There is a tendency to declare homosexuality as the worst of all sins. While it is undeniable, biblically speaking, that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27), in no sense does the Bible describe homosexuality as an unforgivable sin. Nor does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin Christians will never struggle against.
Perhaps that is the key phrase in the question of whether it is possible to be a gay Christian: “struggle against.” It is possible for a Christian to struggle with homosexual temptations. Many homosexuals who become Christians have ongoing struggles with homosexual feelings and desires. Some strongly heterosexual men and women have experienced a “spark” of homosexual interest at some point in their lives. Whether or not these desires and temptations exist does not determine whether a person is a Christian. The Bible is clear that no Christian is sinless (1 John 1:8,10). While the specific sin / temptation varies from one Christian to another, all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles (1 Corinthians 10:13).
What differentiates a Christian’s life from a non-Christian’s life is the struggle against sin. The Christian life is a progressive journey of overcoming the “acts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21) and allowing God’s Spirit to produce the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23). Yes, Christians sin, sometimes horribly. Sadly, sometimes Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians. However, a true Christian will always repent, will always eventually return to God, and will always resume the struggle against sin. But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian. Notice 1 Corinthians 6:11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
First Corinthians 6:9-10 lists sins that, if indulged in continuously, identify a person as not being redeemed—not being a Christian. Often, homosexuality is singled out from this list. If a person struggles with homosexual temptations, that person is presumed to be unsaved. If a person actually engages in homosexual acts, that person is definitely thought to be unsaved. However, the same assumptions are not made, at least not with the same emphasis, regarding other sins in the list: fornication (pre-marital sex), idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, alcoholism, slander, and deceit. It is inconsistent, for example, to declare those guilty of pre-marital sex as “disobedient Christians,” while declaring homosexuals definitively non-Christians.
Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-Christian.html
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"
Answer: What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It is abundantly clear that homosexuality was the primary evil. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the LORD and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The LORD reiterated His promise to Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah. The LORD also informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the LORD to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.
Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities — and also the vegetation in the land."
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, thinking that the visiting angels were men, wanted to have sex with them. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. While the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable, that clearly was not all. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah desired to perform homosexual gang rape on the angels. Also, God never declared inhospitality to be an abomination to Him, while Leviticus 18:22 makes God’s view of homosexuality clear: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
While Sodom and Gomorrah were surely guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?
Question: "What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?"
Answer: The Bible nowhere directly mentions bisexuality. However, it is clear from the Bible's denunciations of homosexuality that bisexuality would also be considered sinful. Leviticus 18:22 describes a person having sexual relations with the same sex as an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 condemns sexual relations between the same sex as abandoning what is natural. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. These truths apply equally to bisexuals and to homosexuals.
The Bible tells us that a person becomes bisexual or homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27). This does not necessarily mean sins the person has committed. Rather, it refers to sin itself. Sin warps, twists, and perverts everything in creation. Bisexuality and homosexuality are caused by sin "damaging" us spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Sin is the plague, and bisexuality is simply one of the symptoms.
Many Christians mistakenly focus on bisexuality and homosexuality as particularly evil sins. The Bible nowhere describes homosexuality as being any less forgivable than any other sin. A bisexual is the same number of steps away from salvation as the "moral" legalist—one. God offers forgiveness to anyone and everyone who will trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This includes those involved in bisexuality. Once salvation through Christ is received, God will begin the process of destroying the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), including any and all homosexual tendencies, and developing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The promise of a "new creation" is available to anyone who will trust in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
http://www.gotquestions.org/bisexual-bisexuality.html
Question: "What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?"
Answer: The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).
http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html
What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"
Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html
What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?
Question: "What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?"
Answer: Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describe themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.
The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.
In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”
After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.
The Bible calls all such gender distortion sin. Transgenderism is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder; it is rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.
http://www.gotquestions.org/transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html
Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
Question: "Is it possible to be a gay Christian?"
Answer: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There is a tendency to declare homosexuality as the worst of all sins. While it is undeniable, biblically speaking, that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27), in no sense does the Bible describe homosexuality as an unforgivable sin. Nor does the Bible teach that homosexuality is a sin Christians will never struggle against.
Perhaps that is the key phrase in the question of whether it is possible to be a gay Christian: “struggle against.” It is possible for a Christian to struggle with homosexual temptations. Many homosexuals who become Christians have ongoing struggles with homosexual feelings and desires. Some strongly heterosexual men and women have experienced a “spark” of homosexual interest at some point in their lives. Whether or not these desires and temptations exist does not determine whether a person is a Christian. The Bible is clear that no Christian is sinless (1 John 1:8,10). While the specific sin / temptation varies from one Christian to another, all Christians have struggles with sin, and all Christians sometimes fail in those struggles (1 Corinthians 10:13).
What differentiates a Christian’s life from a non-Christian’s life is the struggle against sin. The Christian life is a progressive journey of overcoming the “acts of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21) and allowing God’s Spirit to produce the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23). Yes, Christians sin, sometimes horribly. Sadly, sometimes Christians are indistinguishable from non-Christians. However, a true Christian will always repent, will always eventually return to God, and will always resume the struggle against sin. But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian. Notice 1 Corinthians 6:11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
First Corinthians 6:9-10 lists sins that, if indulged in continuously, identify a person as not being redeemed—not being a Christian. Often, homosexuality is singled out from this list. If a person struggles with homosexual temptations, that person is presumed to be unsaved. If a person actually engages in homosexual acts, that person is definitely thought to be unsaved. However, the same assumptions are not made, at least not with the same emphasis, regarding other sins in the list: fornication (pre-marital sex), idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, alcoholism, slander, and deceit. It is inconsistent, for example, to declare those guilty of pre-marital sex as “disobedient Christians,” while declaring homosexuals definitively non-Christians.
Is it possible to be a gay Christian? If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who struggles against homosexual desires and temptations – yes, a “gay Christian” is possible. However, the description “gay Christian” is not accurate for such a person, since he/she does not desire to be gay, and is struggling against the temptations. Such a person is not a “gay Christian,” but rather is simply a struggling Christian, just as there are Christians who struggle with fornication, lying, and stealing. If the phrase “gay Christian” refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle – no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-Christian.html
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"
Answer: What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It is abundantly clear that homosexuality was the primary evil. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the LORD and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The LORD reiterated His promise to Abraham that he would have a son through Sarah. The LORD also informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the LORD to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.
Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities — and also the vegetation in the land."
The men of Sodom and Gomorrah, thinking that the visiting angels were men, wanted to have sex with them. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. While the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable, that clearly was not all. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah desired to perform homosexual gang rape on the angels. Also, God never declared inhospitality to be an abomination to Him, while Leviticus 18:22 makes God’s view of homosexuality clear: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
While Sodom and Gomorrah were surely guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?
Question: "What does the Bible say about bisexuality? Is being a bisexual a sin?"
Answer: The Bible nowhere directly mentions bisexuality. However, it is clear from the Bible's denunciations of homosexuality that bisexuality would also be considered sinful. Leviticus 18:22 describes a person having sexual relations with the same sex as an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 condemns sexual relations between the same sex as abandoning what is natural. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God. These truths apply equally to bisexuals and to homosexuals.
The Bible tells us that a person becomes bisexual or homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27). This does not necessarily mean sins the person has committed. Rather, it refers to sin itself. Sin warps, twists, and perverts everything in creation. Bisexuality and homosexuality are caused by sin "damaging" us spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically. Sin is the plague, and bisexuality is simply one of the symptoms.
Many Christians mistakenly focus on bisexuality and homosexuality as particularly evil sins. The Bible nowhere describes homosexuality as being any less forgivable than any other sin. A bisexual is the same number of steps away from salvation as the "moral" legalist—one. God offers forgiveness to anyone and everyone who will trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This includes those involved in bisexuality. Once salvation through Christ is received, God will begin the process of destroying the acts of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), including any and all homosexual tendencies, and developing the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The promise of a "new creation" is available to anyone who will trust in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
http://www.gotquestions.org/bisexual-bisexuality.html
2009/05/26
Gay minister's appointment divides Church of Scotland
Gay minister's appointment divides Church of Scotland
• More than 12,000 church members signed petition in protest
• Activists for equal rights say decision is blow against prejudice
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 May 2009 18.39 BST
Article history
Campaigners for gay rights have welcomed a landmark decision by Scotland's largest Protestant church to appoint an openly gay minister to a new post.
The Church of Scotland voted late last nightto allow the Rev Scott Rennie to become minister at a church in Aberdeen, despite a vigorous protest campaign against his appointment by conservative and anti-gay evangelical groups.
Rennie is the first openly gay clergyman in a sexually active relationship in the UK to have his appointment officially confirmed by his church's governing body, breaking with centuries of Protestant tradition.
More than 12,000 people, including 272 serving Church of Scotland ministers, more than 700 ministers from Protestant and Catholic churches in Britain and Ireland, and more than 500 ministers from overseas, signed an online petition objecting to his new posting.
After a four-hour debate last, the church's general assembly, its governing body, voted by 326 to 267 to uphold his new posting. It will debate a new motion on whether to completely bar gay men and lesbians from the church – a vote the conservatives now face losing.
Senior gay rights campaigners in the Church of England, which is trying to prevent a deep split in the worldwide Anglican communion over the ordination of gay clergy, said Rennie's victory would significantly strengthen the pressure for reform.
The Rev Colin Coward, the chairman of the Anglican pressure group Changing Attitudes, said there were hundreds of gay clergy and several gay bishops in the Church of England, and bishops who supported civil partnerships. Their case for official recognition that gay men and lesbians in long-term partnerships had the same rights within the church would be "enhanced" by Rennie's appointment.
"It's very significant that the Church of Scotland has voted in this way," he said. "The pressure is especially on conservatives in the church to examine carefully the distinction they try to make between orientation and practice."
The Rev Martin Reynolds, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: "This is a significant moment. I think the Church of England is stuck in refusing to acknowledge the presence of lesbian and gay people in its ranks."
Senior Church of Scotland traditionalists were furious about the vote, arguing that it created a worldwide precedent that authorised the ordination and appointment of gay clergy and "brought shame" on their church. "It sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends. It is a deeply painful day for all who love Christ and his Gospel," said the Fellowship of Confessing Churches.Two leading conservatives, the Rev David Court from Edinburgh and the Rev William Philip from Glasgow,, played down earlier warnings that it would lead to a split in the Scottish church, but warned it would alienate many lay members: "We deeply regret the decision of the general assembly, which has brought great shame on the name of our lord, Jesus Christ, and his church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin.
"This is about far more than just sexuality. The very nature of the Christian gospel is at stake."
Rennie's confirmation came after 12 conservative and evangelical Church of Scotland several members in the Aberdeen presbytery, the area's ruling body, objected to his appointment as minister of Queen's Cross church in January. A divorcee who is currently minister of Brechin cathedral, Rennie told the Queen's Cross congregation he was gay and in a permanent relationship. The protesters said that contradicted the church's decision in 2007 to delay making policy on ordained gay or lesbian ministers.
The Rev Ian Aitken, the protesters' spokesman, said the, told the general assembly that Aberdeen presbytery was unilaterally making church policyand challenging its unity when it endorsed Rennie's appointment. "Our presbytery struck out on its own, and effectively made a decision for the rest of the church," he said.
Rennie, whose campaign was supported by his former wife, Helen Rennie, told The Guardiantoday he was "humbled" that the general assembly had endorsed him.He had been "personally hurt" by the attacks on his appointment and private life, he said, but added that it would help open up the church to all Christians. "I think the gospel is about hope and not about fear," he said. "I hope that a lot of people across Scotland and the UK will receive this decision as one of hope, and whatever the future holds, we need a spirit of hope so we talk together and we're not paralysed by fear. Fear has nothing to do with the gospel. In fact Jesus so often said to his disciples 'do not be afraid'."
He added: "I'm already serving in a parish and so are other gay ministers serving in a parish. Are we never to move?
"The question was about the call of God in my life, the call of God in a congregation's life, and we've to respond. Everybody responds to the call of God. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I shouldn't."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/24/scotland-aberdeen-gay-priest-protestant
2009/05/24
Home: No place for Bible study
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Home: No place for Bible study
County demands pastor spend thousands on 'Major Use' permit to host friends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 22, 2009
5:13 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A San Diego pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home.
The couple, whose names are being withheld until a demand letter can be filed on their behalf, told their attorney a county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, which are attended by approximately 15 people.
"Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say 'amen'?" the official reportedly asked. "Do you say, 'Praise the Lord'?"
The pastor's wife answered yes.
She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
Remind the world who's really in charge with the "Worship GOD, not GOV" magnetic bumper sticker from WND.
Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, which has been retained to represent the couple, told WND the county's action not only violates religious land-use laws but also assaults both the First Amendment's freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.
"The First Amendment, in part, reads, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'" Broyles said. "And that's the key part: 'prohibiting the free exercise.' We believe this is a substantial government burden on the free exercise of religion."
He continued, "If one's home is one's castle, certainly you would the think the free exercise of religion, of all places, could occur in the home."
(Story continues below)
Broyles confirmed the county official followed through on his threat. The pastor and his wife received a written warning ordering the couple to "cease/stop religious assembly on parcel or obtain a major use permit."
"The Western Center for Law and Policy is troubled by this draconian move to suppress home Bible studies," said the law center in a statement. "If the current trends in our nation continue, churches may be forced underground. If that happens, believers will once again be forced to meet in homes. If homes are already closed by the government to assembly and worship, where then will Christians meet?"
On a personal note, Broyles added, "I've been leading Bible studies in my home for 13 years in San Diego County, and I personally believe that home fellowship Bible studies are the past and future of the church. … If you look at China, the church grew from home Bible studies. I'm deeply concerned that if in the U.S. we are not able to meet in our homes and freely practice our religion, then we may be worse off than China."
Broyles also explained to WND that oppressive governments, such as communist China or Nazi Germany, worked to repress home fellowships, labeling them the "underground church" or "subversive groups," legally compelling Christians to meet only in sanctioned, government-controlled "official" churches.
"Therein lies my concern," Broyles said. "If people can't practice their religious beliefs in the privacy of their own homes with a few of their friends, that's an egregious First Amendment violation."
WND contacted a spokeswoman for San Diego County, who acknowledged the description of the incident seemed "bizarre," but who was unable to locate the details of the account. She simply could not provide comment yet, she said, until she could become familiar with the case.
Broyles said the WCLP is nearly ready to file a demand letter with the county to release the pastor and his wife from the requirement to obtain the expensive permit. If the county refuses, Broyles said, the WCLP will consider a lawsuit in federal court.
Broyles also told WND the pastor and his wife are continuing to hold the Bible study in their home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98895
Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech - Autographed (Hardcover)
Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech - Autographed (Hardcover)
by Brad O'Leary
As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying, there is a core constituency in Congress that doesn't believe the free market of ideas is adequately serving the American people.
This group believes it is the government's prerogative to force an agenda onto the public, because the public is too unenlightened or too primitive or too provincial for its own good.
In other words, this core constituency believes that you and I aren't smart enough to figure things out for ourselves, and that we need their help in order to form the correct points of view - their points of view.
In this groundbreaking new book, Brad O'Leary, author of the critically acclaimed "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values", shines the light on a dark mission of the left, shutting down conservative voices on the radio -- and, in the process, eviscerating the First Amendment.
This book exposes the agenda and the strategy behind the plan. It won't be called "the Fairness Doctrine" this time. But it will have the same effect -- or worse. Brad O'Leary lays out the plan -- how Congress and the president will rationalize the changes using the language of "diversity" and "fairness" and "tolerance." He also addresses how the impending legislation and regulations will doubly impact Christian talk radio -- and eventually every other form of communication in America. This is about power and silencing all meaningful opposition.
Product Details
Hardcover: 192 pages
Publisher: WND Books (April 14, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1935071092
ISBN-13: 978-1935071099
NOTE: Purchasing "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND's acclaimed monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2750&AD_ID=Banner&AD1_ID=125x200&AD2_ID=090402-ShutUp125.01
2009/05/21
Blasphemy: A recent post (about Jesus' nomination to the highest court in the land and his subsequent defaming by the Republicans)
A recent post (about Jesus' nomination to the highest court in the land and his subsequent defaming by the Republicans) on the Daily Kos inspired satirist Andy Cobb to make the following video.
As Cobb says on his YouTube page:
"Did you ever love something someone had written on a blog so much you wanted to rush out make a video out of it? No? Well, you probably have a 'life.' Me, I was so taken with this bit by one 'Winsmith' that I felt compelled. Of course, there's no guarantee that no matter who Obama nominates, Boehner will pitch a fit, Bachmann will say something cra-zee, and Steele will make an asshat of himself. But, cm'on. What are the odds?"
Cobb added visuals and his own take to WinSmith's fake report for your viewing pleasure.
WATCH:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/jesus-christ-nominated-to_n_205864.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BREAKING: Obama to nominate Jesus Christ to Supreme Court -- Republicans Announce Filibuster
by WinSmith
Share this on Twitter - BREAKING: Obama to nominate Jesus Christ to Supreme Court -- Republicans Announce Filibuster Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:01:42 AM PDT
In a breaking story still emerging, President Barack Obama has announced the nomination of Jesus Christ of Nazareth to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court to replace the retiring justice David Souter.
Republicans hastily called a press conference to announce outrage at the selection, and an immediate filibuster.
WinSmith's diary :: ::
Here was the initial story from the A.P.
Obama to nominate Jesus Christ to Replace Souter
Friday, May 1st, 1:22pm Ass-ociated Press
WASHINGTON -- In a hastily called West Wing press conference, President Barack Obama announced that he would be nominating Jesus Christ of Nazareth to replace the retiring David Souter on the Supreme Court. "I'm confident that I'd found a candidate known for wisdom, humility, affinity for all human beings, and a solid sense of justice," Obama said, with Jesus standing quietly next to him in meditative repose. "I'm also confident that I've found a candidate all congressmen, republicans and democrats, can agree would make a valuable addition to the court" Obama continued, as Jesus blessed the wine. Picking such a globally revered figure, and the founder of Christianity, was a bold move by Obama that some experts said would force republicans to offer their support. But by early afternoon, the republican response had yet to take shape.
You'd think nominating the globally respected philosopher, religious icon and founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, would go over well with republicans. You'd be wrong.
"This is yet another example of a liberal president nominating a liberal, without any consultation with the republican party on his selection." Newt Gingrich responded at a hastily called press conference from the bedside of his cancer ridden dying wife, whom he's divorcing. Convicted Felon Tom Delay agreed, continuing Gingrich's line of attack in a solo appearance on Meet The Press. "The President assumes that just because we invoke Jesus's name while justifying violent torture, starting horrible wars and letting millions of children go without health insurance, that we're an automatic vote for Jesus. Not this time, Mr. President!" Delay snapped. David Gregory followed up with questions about how his hair looked, then booked Delay for the next seven consecutive Meet the Presses
By the early afternoon, republican opposition to the nomination had begun to take shape, as Fox News unveiled a two hour special, Jesus Christ: What you Didn't Know.:
"What do we really know about this 'Jesus of Nazareth,' if that is his real name. Some say he spends time with prostitutes!" said Sean Hannity in the opening intro, which featured ominous music over still-frames of the young Jesus. "He's from the middle east. Could he have associations with terrorism that we don't yet know about?"
Later, on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly continued the argument. "I don't see how any patriotic American can support this nomination. The guy was a carpenter, gimmie a break! Who are we gonna nominate next? Harrison Ford? I call on all patriotic Americans to join me in this war on Christ!"
Eric Cantor responded by press release:
"I speak for all Jewish republicans in congress, currently only me, when I say that I am deeply troubled and concerned that Jesus Christ is so obviously and clearly Christian. Even his last name suggests a bias that our Supreme Court should not have. The republican party is not simply a party of white Christians, even though the liberal media wants you to believe that. There's also me. The white Jewish guy." Cantor's statement read.
And four hours later, Cantor released a second press release:
I have just been informed that Jesus Christ is actually Jewish. But I must remain opposed to this nomination. This is not because I'm a partisan hack who reflexively votes against anything done by the democrats, and then searches for a justification. It's because Jesus Christ has murky middle eastern origins, palls around with prostitutes, and may or may not have committed an act of terrorism at a Sunday pot luck dinner being held inside a church."
Head of the RNC, Michael Steele, then chimed in:
"I'm cool with it, bros. Jesus is my homeboy."
And again, two hours later:
"I soundly reject the nomination of this so-called "community organizer" to the Supreme Court, and never said otherwise. If you play my quotes back to show I'm a hypocrite, it won't matter, since the few remaining republican voters don't know how to use the internet."
By the evening, things had spun completely out of control, as Fox News began to "report" on so-called "Crucifixion Parties," in which right wing reactionary protesters marched with signs that read "Sit on my court? I'll nail you to it!" and "Judge not, lest ye be lynched!"
In his forty-third appearance on cable news, Bill Kristol had the following to say:
"People think the republican party doesn't want to work with democrats on this nomination. We do. Believe me, the last thing we want to do is filibuster. We just want a candidate who more reflects the core values of the republican party. Like Idi Amin. Or Pol Pot."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer summed up the debate with the following report on The Situation Room:
"The democrats argue they're nominating a figure that republicans have long invoked as the core of their world view, and that therefore it is ridiculous for republicans to filibuster. A republican press release, just issued to CNN, responds by saying, and I'm quoting, 'OINKY WINKY DINKY DOO!!' Is that gibberish or not? It's not for me to say. My hair is silver."
Tags: Recommended, Jesus Christ, Supreme Court, satire, snark (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/1/726798/-BREAKING:-Obama-to-nominate-Jesus-Christ-to-Supreme-CourtRepublicans-Announce-Filibuster
BLASPHEMY: Monk's guide to better sex
BLASPHEMY: Monk's guide to better sex
Monk's guide to better sex
Monday, June 16, 2008
A celibate monk has set up a website telling Catholic couples how to have better sex.
Father Ksawery Knotz's lover's guide on www.szansaspotkania.net gives graphic lovemaking tips and has been dubbed the 'Catholic Kama Sutra'.
It compares having an orgasm to going to heaven and recommends that men 'take care that women experience pleasure' during sex, adding that this requires 'extra efforts on the part of the husband'.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=177581&in_page_id=64&in_a_source=
A CELIBATE monk has set up a website – offering sex advice to lovers.
Father Ksawery Knotz’s service has been swamped since he started offering tips on how to achieve “super orgasms”.
The guide – which compares orgasm to going to heaven – has already been dubbed the Catholic Kama Sutra.
Father Ksawery, from Poland, said: “Contrary to common belief, the Church does not ban the pleasures of the flesh.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1300247.ece
Carnal Cardinals – A Catholic Monk’s Good Sex Guide
March 20, 2009 by Robert Bonnett
Well it’s actually entitled ‘The Act of Marriage’ but ‘Carnal Cardinals’ sounds better. Written by Polish monk, Father Ksawery Knotz the sex guide promotes a healthy love life and doesn’t *apparently* contradict church doctrine. This ‘Catholic Karma Sutra’ (yes, yes, I agree, that’s up there with ‘Carnal Cardinals’) is based on passages from the bible, and in a section called ‘Theology Of The Orgasm,’ goes as far as to claim that the climax of pleasure is tantamount to meeting God in heaven.
The monk stroke author, who lives in the Polish town of Stalowa Wol, wrote the manual despite having had no sexual experiences of his own (hmmmm, we’ll have to take his word on that). The good news is that he’s now at work on his second book, which is entitled ‘Sex That You Don’t Know’ and focuses more on the practical side of things. Anyone desirous of one-to-one tuition will be pleased to know that he also offers weekend AND six day workshops, but sadly he’s fully booked for the foreseeable future.
NB: It should be noted that celibate as these religious fellows are supposed to be, some 12% of Catholic priests admit to being in a relationship. Shocking, but lets hope that they stick to the whole coitus interruptus rule.
http://robertbonnett.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/carnal-cardinals-%E2%80%93-a-catholic-monk%E2%80%99s-good-sex-guide/
2009/05/18
Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, & church history
Although Dan Brown's Angels & Demons did not enjoy nearly the success of his DaVinci Code, & although the Ron Howard, Tom Hanks movie Angels & Demons doesn't appear to be headed for the same popularity as the DaVinci Code movie, both versions of Angels & Demons make huge errors in history, theology, philosophy, & church history that could undermine the faith of credulous Christians and affirm the skepticism of credulous non-believers. Christians should be prepared with some good answers to the main errors.
A Catholic publisher, Ascension Press, has published a free e-book: Answering Angels & Demons, by Catholic apologist Mark Shea, that is a handy primer for those who want quick answers to the main errors.
This e-book does a good job of summarizing the major errors in Angels & Demons, & mostly sticks to the common articles of faith all Christians share, regardless whether we are Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox. Although I have specific reasons I am not Catholic, & although I don't agree with everything in this handy answer, I do believe it is a good defense of the true Christian faith specifically against the kinds of errors promoted in Angels & Demons, & I am confident if you read the free e-book, you will be well equipped to answer people's general questions about Christianity that may arise from the book or move.
Blessings in Christ,
Gretchen Passantino
Director
Answers In Action
2009/05/03
About the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”
About the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”
(From the Byzantine Icon to the TV Set)
The Holy Scripture does not give us any detail concerning the aspect of Jesus. This fact gave birth to some controversial theories concerning the historic aspect of the Saviour. The truth about the aspect of God preoccupied the minds of the Christians immediately after the epoch of those who were eyewitnesses. The reason for which the aspect of the Saviour did not spread among the first Christians arises from the very essence of Christianity, from the high philosophical principles concentrated around the spiritual world and not around the material one. That is why the material aspect of Christ was replaced very easily by symbols, for example the fish (made of stone or of amber and hung by Christians at their neck in the same way we do today with the cross), and had no impediment upon their belief in Him. The first Christians, because they were waiting for the second coming of the Saviour (which they considered to be immediate) focused more on the spiritual side, that is the facts which concerned more their own Salvation and paid less attention to external details, for example the physical aspect of the Saviour. Certainly, this situation changed in time. Due to the fact that very few people could reach the high Christian philosophy, and the fame of the Wiseman from Nazareth surpassed the boundaries of His people spreading among the pagans, some images of the Saviour began to appear as each people could imagine Him. For instance, the Romans represented Christ as a soldier carrying a sheep upon His back (The Kind Sheppard, Roman catacombs, centuries II-III), while the Greeks represented Him as a beardless young man, bearing in mind the model of Hermes. In one word, the cult of the human body cultivated by the Greeks, the pagan anthropocentricism reflects inevitably upon the painted representations of Christ. It is against this fact that the fathers of the Vth–VIth Ecumenical Synod (692) rise and interdict categorically all images by means of the rule 100, images which “…put spells upon the eyes, corrupt the mind and create explosions of devilish pleasures”. That is why, the Byzantine style of canonic representation has been established to represent the Saviour, His Mother and all the Saints and is present even today in Orthodox churches. Serious and essential, the Byzantine style catches the state of the deified, spiritual body lacking any allusion to human body; this is the new body about which Apostle Paul speaks. This canon was violated in the western countries where a soppy, even perverse painting has been developed since the Renaissance and until nowadays. But which is, in fact, the truth about the image of God because since He had a human body and lived among us, it is clear that He had a historic countenance, which He appeared with. Let’s see what the Christian philosopher Origenes says in his work “Against Celsius”, written in the year 248 where he quotes Celsius: “If the Spirit of God embodied truly in him (Jesus), then he must distinguish himself from the other ones by the beauty of his face, by the perfection of his body, as well as by the art of speaking. Because one can’t believe that the one in whose body was something of divine origin can’t distinguish himself from the other ones. And still people say that Jesus had a miserable body and a face so ugly that it provoked abhorrence”. 1 The opinion about un unpleasant aspect of the Saviour belonged to the early Christian theologies (Tertulianus, Saints Clement and Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Irineus of Lyon, and others) and it was based on the literally understanding of one of prophet Isaiah’s verses referring to the embodiment of God: “He had neither a pleasant face, nor beauty so that we could admire Him and no pleasant aspect to care for Him. He was despised even by the last man of no importance” (Is. 53, 2-3). However, we incline to joint the parents who find in this verse the direct indication to Saviour’s passions. In this respect, the description, which is clearly repellant, does not influence the conception about the physical perfection of Christ. In fact, imperfection itself is a consequence of the falling. Because “God created the man according to His own image” (Creation, 1, 27) “ and God realized it was good” (Creation, 1, 12-18-21-25). So, creating Adam, God made him perfect and only sin could generate all the later imperfections, even the physical ones, as stigmata of “his death” (Creation, 3, 3) and as a violation of the command of God. Yet “the holiness of the body of our God and Saviour was infinitely greater than the holiness in which the being’s body was created – the body of Adam”. 2 Any physical imperfection, in this case, in the description of our Saviour, would come in contradiction with the lack of sin, which is said to characterize Him. Christ’s physical perfection is the guarantee for the success of the renewal of the old Adam by the new Adam – our God.
Starting from the same fact - that of deifying of Christ as noted by Origenes, Saint Ignatie Brancianinov writes: 3 “ The body of the God-man had a strange grace and beauty, exactly as His proto-father and prophet David sang about Him: Adorned with beauty art Thou more than the sons of men (Psalm 44, 2). But the physical beauty of the God-man had not the same effect upon women, as usually does the beauty of men6. Such a blasphemy must be rejected although it is pronounced and accepted by heretics.7 On the contrary, the body of Christ healed all the passions – both of the body and of the soul. His body was impregnated with divine grace and spread it all around to those who touched Him, both men and women. Great power went out of Him – says the Gospel – and healed everybody.(Luke, 6,19). And all those who touched Him were healed. (Mark, 6, 56). This is that divine body about which God Himself stated: The one who eats My body and drinks My blood will live forever and I will raise him from the dead in the Last Day. (In.6, 54-56). Saint Joannnis Chrisostomus is of the same opinion when he states that “Jesus was a very beautiful man”; together with Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Augustine, Saint Ambrosias of Mediolania they were convinced that the God- man “adorned Himself with beauty more than the sons of men”; “ Thy lips were covered with holy grace and this is why Thou art blessed by God.” (Psalm 44, 3).
But the stage director Martin Scorsese considers this problem in a very different way in his movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” (made after Nikos Kazantzakis’s book). 8 For him, Jesus Christ is not the Chosen One. Not only that He equals everybody, but also He is completely trite, He is more than ordinary. His face lacks any trace of the divine grace and is physically repulsive. His face is full of platitude, exactly as His life is. In His discussion with Judah He states that one needs to free his soul because if one does not so, the chain of evil will never be broken, that the main purpose is the salvation of the soul and not the liberation from the Roman oppression or the salvation of the body, as Judah states. All these do not convince the spectator through the metaphorical solutions given to the events, especially the crucifixion, which abounds in purely physiological elements and in the sufferance of Jesus crucified. He dies physically on the Cross and one can’t believe His spirit will ever reach at His Father.”9 The impression made by Scorsese’s movie is not even this base philosophy but something even scarier. The idea that Christ was not God is found in Gospels at the God-killing Jews and that is why they crucified Him. “We found this man rebelling our people and saying He is Christ”(Luke, 23, 2). The idea that Jesus was born in fornication and that He was demonized is also present in Gospels at the same mad Jews (Mark, 3, 22; John, 8, 41). Scorsese goes further and presents on the screen the filthy gossips created around our Saviour and Mary Magdalene.
In fact, this subject preoccupied not only Scorsese. The Spanish writer Jose Saramago publishes a novel with the same subject “The Gospel after Jesus” (immediately translated into Russian) for which he was awarded with the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature. The Romanian yogis who imported it for their western colleagues discussed this subject. The yogis, especially the western ones, try to motivate their orgies not only by the means of their deities as Krishna (who had 16,800 goppy-sheperdesses) but also by ascribing such lying “qualities” to our saints and even to our Saviour Jesus Christ (we are aware of the speculations made by the resemblance of the words Krishna and Christ). They like to discuss not only on the case of Mary the Egyptian and of Mary Magdalene but also on some other examples taken from the Patristic Texts in which are presented the fallings of some monks followed by their repentance and reformation.
The yogis even found the phrase from the Gospel in which Jesus “praises” fornication: “Her multitude of sins is forgiven because she loved a lot” (Luke, 7, 47). Considering their clever minds, “she loved a lot” refers to the fact that she loved lots of men. As I discussed more than half a day with one of these yogis, a person who pretends to be a writer and I could not convince him by the contrary, I dare to make things clear. If Jesus praised Mary Magdalene for the fact that “she loved lots of men” as yogis pretend, why did Mary Magdalene (who loved Jesus sincerely till the end of her life) gave up fornication, if He praised her for doing this? Where do we know she gave up fornication from? From her crying and tears. For what reason such a famous woman as she was at that time, came and humiliated herself in front of all the others? Because she spread His words together with the Apostles till the end of her life and because she was the first person to whom Jesus revealed Himself after Resurrection (John 20, 14-16). The trouble with this movie is not its subject because it belongs to an unbeliever, but the fact that it was presented in an orthodox country. Nowhere in the world can one present an anti-Semitic movie without being followed by repercussions, especially in Israel.
Never the Istanbul Television will present a movie in which prophet Muhammad is mocked at. While in India, no one dares to drive away a cow from the autoroute because it is considered to be saint! The same movie was presented in Russia in 1997. This is the opinion of the famous theologian, with a doctorate in philosophy, maybe the most famous apologist of contemporary Russia, deacon Andrei Kuraev: “the most outrageous event of the religious life of Russia of the year 1997 happened on November 9th. On this Sunday evening the NTV presented the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”. The hidden conflict between the huge informational kingdom of Russia and the Orthodox Church broke out, the former declaring war on the latter.”11 The Church gave no occasion for this. The calendar was the only reason: November the 9th, the celebration of the Crystal Night. This is the sad night when persecutions on Jews began in the Nazi Germany. It is understood that the main director of the NTV, Alexandr Faifman as well as its owner, Mr. Gusinski (general director of “media-MOST” and president of the Russian Jewish Congress) keep in mind a painful recollection of this night. But why he decided to revenge upon the Russian orthodox believers for the crime of the German neo-pagans (it is already known that Nazism, nourished by occultism, was an enemy not only for Judaism but also for Christianity)? Why this pain of him flooded as an insult upon that people who saved the European Jewish Community from annihilation?
No insults? Was it only the right of every person the express freely his own opinion? Yes, there is such a right, within its natural limits. The free movement of my hand ends exactly where the face of another person begins. The other one’s pain – this is the border upon which not even the most legitimate sentiments of mine can pass. Neither my joy, nor my sorrow must provoke other people’s pain (…)
Yes, every person has the right do discuss with Christians, the right to criticize and to contradict. But he has no right to spit and to utter blasphemies. It is a blasphemy to stamp upon one’s memory bed scenes between Mary Magdalene and… And there are the explanations: “Look, this fact is intended, these are hallucinations created by the Devil in the consciousness of the Crucified”, explanations which have no importance. According to Christian knowledge, in general, bad and lying thoughts cannot appear in the consciousness of the God-man Christ. The voice of the King of Darkness cannot sound within the Son of God. But his movie is a blasphemy not only from the point of view of the believer. A massive anti-cultural movement promotes an intentional blasphemous reading of The Gospel. Thirst for mockery, for defiling, everything is saint, characterizes the contemporary nobility. Pushkine becomes interesting not by his poetry but by his “Don Juan list”; they remember Chaikovsky especially when talking about sexual minorities…”12 The fight of the Church against such sub-productions is not the fight of some fanatic persons against cultural progress but an impulse to direct towards the true culture. An impulse to discover and make known the profoundness of the human spirit that is not proper to animals, that is to make us aware of the immortality of our human soul, of the high philosophy we are summoned to understand. In this specific case, there is not a simple violation of religious intimacy of Christians, but a distortion of reality and a pathologic alienation from the minimum intellectual stability, which is necessary to each person.
The movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was rejected not only by the believers but also by non-believers, because it is full of improper realism, but not of realism, widely speaking. In the Orthodox theology there is a concept as “religious mystical realism” (Pavel Florenski, Leonid Uspenski, and others) whose essence lays in the fact that iconography when creating “the unimaginable face” (or “the incomparable resemblance”) reflects the supreme deifying reality. And that is why the religious symbol is much more realistic than the illusory imitation of life in realistic painting. The symbol does not oppose to realism, but to the abstract imagination, which declines any relationship with reality, except that with itself.13 That is why the canonic representation of Christ in orthodox iconography is the closest to His historical and mystical reality and only the spiritual immaturity of some persons led to the decay of the icon in its Renaissance and Roman-catholic variant. In this respect it is very easy to follow the spiritual state of a certain people end epoch, considering the way of thinking the icon, the seeing face of the unseen. With the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ”, mankind touches the climax of moral and spiritual regression. What God did in the beginning “according to His face and resemblance”, does no longer exist. Now it is the man who creates God according to his face and rotten resemblance (Romans 1, 23).
And if through the means of “the seventh art” – the movie, painting surpassed itself (and we are entitled to call the movie a living painting), more than the essay of the Ancients to stop the time, that helpless sigh of Goethe: “Stop, oh, moment: how wonderful you are!” then the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” is the unavoidable sequel of a not respected iconographic canon from the year 692.14 The lack of obedience of the Roman- Catholics as well the practice of painting catalyzed by the feelings of the decayed nature, developed together with the extension of painting within the film art, towards the serious accents which result from this movie.
1. Iu.G. Bobrov, Bases of Old Russian Iconography (Osnovi iconografii drevnerusscoi jivopisi), Axioma, Sanct-Petersburg, 1995, p. 188
2. St. Ignatii Brancianinov, Izlojenie ucenia Pravoslavnoi Tzercvi o Bojiei Materi, Statisi, Sanvt-Peterburg, 1997, p. 10
3. Idem, p. 11
4. The case of Mary Magdalene who, after touching His feet, got holiness and gave up sin.
5. The novel inspired by the Gospel and known as Passion douloureuse de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, par Ecaterine dEmerich ( With he Saint’s note). For our century see, for instance, “ The Gospel after Jesus” by Jose Saramago (the1997 Nobel Prize).
6. We note hat Nikos Kazantzakis, considered the greatest Greek prose writer of the XXth century was awarded both with Nobel Prize and with the anathema thrown upon him by the Orthodox Church of Greece.
7. Iacovlev E.G., “The Image of Christ in Orthodoxy within the context of the Universal Culture” ( “Obraz Hrista v pravoslavii v contexte morovoi relighioznoi culturi’, Naucino Bogoslavskie Trudi, Belgorod, 1999, p. 240
8. NTV (Russian HTB). An independent TV, the most popular in the post-soviet Russia
9. Deacon Andrei Kuraev, “ Kak delaiut antisemitom”,Odighitria Publishing House, Moscow, 1999
10. Deacon Andrei Kuraev, ibidem
11. Quoted by Iacovlev E. G., ibidem, p. 240
12. It is against this fact that the fathers of the Vth-VIth Ecumenical Synod
(692) rose and forbade all unchaste images by the means of the canon 100: “ That is why we command that from now on such images that put spells on the eyes, corrupt the mind or create explosions of devilish pleasures, should not be painted on wood or on other materials. If somebody dares to do this, anathema must be thrown upon him “.
http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_hieromonk_savatie_the_last_temtation_of_christ.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)