Tags
“IB knows Christ never condemned homosexuality or defined marriage.”
IB knows no such thing! I haven’t responded to that particular meme because of a lack of time and reluctance to engage in too many debates at once. I will now, however.
First off, the word “condemned.” Near as I can tell Christ is the opposite of condemnation. Something may be wrong, undesirable, a sin, but John 3:17 clearly states, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. So forget the rhetorical trickery of trying to slip the word “condemned” in there. In Christ there is no condemnation.
To oppose same-sex marriage has nothing what so ever to do with “condemnation” or “condemning” anyone. We’re all sinners. Well, except for a couple of pompous and arrogant pharisees who seem to believe they’ve obtained perfection or something, in which case I wish they’d just ascend already and leave the rest of us alone.
However, scripture is pretty clear on the issue of marriage. In Matthew 19:4-6 Christ says “And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Sounds pretty clear to me. Although through the ages there may have been polygamy, slavery, and assorted other human-defined arrangements, that’s certainly not the intended design spoken of by “He who made them at the beginning.”
Also, three of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Sodom and Gomorrah, specifically sexual sin, homosexuality, and failing to feed the poor. There were huge gaps between the rich and the poor, sexual immorality running rampant, very little morality of any sort, and the very foundation of those cities, the cornerstone that held those civilizations up, was being disregarded, disrespected. It was a free for all, might makes right. Over and over again we are warned about this. Luke 17:30 even goes so far as to say, “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”
So you see, Jesus did speak rather directly about the issue of same-sex marriage and the consequences of falling away. But let’s also go on to look at who Christ really was, John1:1 says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. So, from the very start, from Genesis to Revelation, homosexuality is not approved of and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. From day one to the very end. The alpha and the omega.
As if to reinforce that very fact, frequently it is the very language of marriage that scripture uses to describe our own relationship with Christ. The Bride, the Body of Christ, the church. There is a whole spiritual union being described there, in the closest form of language that we can understand, the intimacy and covenant of marriage.
The entire bible begins with two naked people in a garden and ends with a wedding. I have to say, I think scripture is quite clear that marriage between a man and a woman is pretty darn important to God. Christ Himself comes for His Bride, His Body of Christ. Right to that very final chapter we see the language of marriage being spoken by “He who made them at the beginning.”
As to “judge not least you be judged.” The word “judge” is to be found some 700 times in the bible. In fact there’s an entire book called Judges! No where are people called to be so open minded their brains fall out. Let’s look at Psalms 37:30 “The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.” Or John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
Like many other people, I don’t want to offend anybody, I don’t want to be seen as judging or condemning anyone. I want to soothe hurt feelings. I believe in love and mercy and redemption, but there is absolutely nothing in scripture that tells me I should support gay marriage. In fact, just the opposite. We have clear instructions in a dozen different ways telling us not to.
To attempt to force, threaten, intimidate, punish, those of us who do our best to understand and follow scripture, is really to suppress our religious freedom.
It’s a difficult issue, especially where I live because so many Christians subscribe to the belief that there is nothing in scripture against SSM and I’m often left feeling as if I’ve fallen down a rabbit hole or something. I do not understand how anyone can read the bible and come to that conclusion.
“Christ never condemned homosexuality or defined marriage,” is simply a whopper too big for a whale to swallow.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Thank you IB for that. It’s so sad when Christians fail to understand the link between our secular marriages and the our role as the Bride of Christ.
On the other hand, we have in some ways created our own monster in this area, as we rail against it so vehemently we create the impression that homosexuals are the one group of sinners excluded from the grace of God, and that is simply not the case at all.
So, here we have extremes all around us. The radical homosexual element who would have us not only abide by the law of the land, whatever that might be, but require us to celebrate this and say..okay sure it’s perfectly wonderful.
Then we have Fred Phelps, or had I guess, and his band of loonies picketing the funerals of honorably dead soldiers over some whacked out idea that is okay because our government supports SSM, therefore soldiers are fair game.
Then we have the elements in the Christian church unwilling to stand by what Scripture teaches pretty darn clearly.
Pretty sure you nailed this one pretty good myself. Thanks for it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thanks, Wally.
I actually agree with you here, “On the other hand, we have in some ways created our own monster in this area….” Yes, in a million different ways. These issues have been common down the path for decades now. It didn’t happen over night and many things have played a role in bringing it all about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The struggle to warp one’s fleshly desire’s into a spiritual mold often blind’s us into accepting without analysis comments such as this one you’ve now refuted. Thank you for taking the time and effort to do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a really good point. Thanks for your kind words.
LikeLike
Thanks IB. Words wise, loving and anchored in truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the issue of same-gender marriage should not be dealt with through ANY kind of religious exegesis. It’s a civil issue, the right of the state to define who may be considered married under law. Not everyone is religious, seeks to be married in a church, or is Christian. The right of religious organizations to opt out of sanctifying anything they object to should absolutely be respected. Some churches still don’t allow divorced persons to remarry there either, and there are other restrictions not uniform to all.
Christian sects and scholars are frankly all over the map about what the passages you noted (and other relevant ones) even mean. Some churches are inerrantists, and others balance scripture coequally against tradition and reason. Since I’m not a Bible scholar, I won’t start any new reformation wars over it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a lovely compromise! But if churches can opt out, why not anybody? And if anybody could opt out, how long would that satisfy the homosexual rights activists?
The basic problem here is one of reality. Same-sex “marriage” is not marriage. Yet if the state declares same-sex “marriage” is is real, what does that mean? Does it mean that the government gets to push around private businesses on behalf of the civil rights of same-sex couples? Does it mean the civil servants have to celebrate the union of same-sex couples? Does it mean churches cannot discriminate against same-sex couples? That that would be a hate crime?
Imagine if the government decided to declare Santa Claus real. Next thing you know Uncle Sam is taxing the “income” we get in gifts from that jolly old man. “Gosh! Well, yes I did tell my wife that the new car was from Santa Claus, but everyone knows Santa is not real.” And the man from the IRS auditing my books just shakes his head. “Don’t you know President Obama has a phone and a pen? And he says Santa Claus is real. Now pay up!”
You think the government is going to let you opt out of your taxes? Just because you don’t believe in Santa Claus? Don’t you know that too many of our leaders adore our money and the power they have over us?
When reality is in dispute — when people start hallucinating (particularly our leaders) — the only cure is humility (Roman 1:18-32). For those who will not humble themselves before their Creator are just too full of themselves to see what is right before them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You had a pretty good argument forming until you decided to quote scripture as a closer. It’s NOT a religious issue to anyone EXCEPT the religious. Law has to make accommodations for all citizens. Additionally, the “slippery slope” argument (or continuum fallacy for you lovers of logic) assumes A inevitably leads to B without justification or a reason why. All your off-topic “why nots” fit this fallacy.
LikeLike
” It’s NOT a religious issue to anyone EXCEPT the religious.”
If that were true then we would have stopped when civil unions were authorized. Civil unions however were perceived as granting second class status, separate but equal, when what was truly desired was “full marriage rights.” What does full marriage rights mean? It means “equality” with heterosexual marriage, which means all the traditional trappings of weddings, including being able to marry in a church and to be perceived as just as religiously blessed as any other marriage.
So, I’m afraid the “it’s not a religious issue” just doesn’t fly anymore. It is clearly a religious issue with many gay marriage advocates flat out demanding exactly that, full acceptance within the church and community at large as married couples.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The mere fact I quoted scripture undermines my argument? If I had not quoted scripture, my argument would stand? And you think that’s logical?
Actually, the law does not exist to make accommodations for anyone. The law exists to force us to respect each others rights.
Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a responsibility. Marriage exists to protect the right of children to the care and protection of their mother and father. Does anyone have the right to redefine marriage just because our need to protect the rights of children makes them unhappy? Legitimizing the sexual relationships of same-sex couples takes precedence over the rights of children? We suppose to infuriate half the population for that?
How we each define and respect the rights of others depends upon how we each define right and wrong. Inevitably, we each define right and wrong based upon how we answer certain questions. Those questions necessarily relate to our beliefs about God. If we don’t believe in God, then our god becomes whatever we think most important. For some people, that could be the pleasure of sex, for example.
Your words shout that we must approach the issues of right and wrong from a secular perspective. Yet, ironically, that is a religious view. It says volumes about your relationship with God. Similarly, when I reference scripture, I am merely telling you how I approach issues of right and wrong, about my relationship with God.
In a society with diverse religious beliefs, how do we deal with that diversity? Do we silence the discussion of religion? No. We limit the power of the government to that which is essential. We insist that the government have no authority to establish a religion. That includes secularism, that absurd notion that religious belief belongs in a private closet.
Think of it this way. If a change in the Law offend the religious beliefs of some people, even Christians, then those people have the right to explain why they consider the change offensive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t see it as a religious issue at all. Civilized societies across the board have suppressed homosexuality and never sanctioned it with the dignity of civil marriage until now. The Pink Mafia—many of whom occupy positions in the media—have been trying to frame it as progressive policy vs. religious reactionism.
Consider two historical extremes: during the Middle Ages. homosexuality was widely practiced among the degenerated clergy and monarchy. There existed both the civil and ecclesiastical power to change the laws, but no one dared propose doing it.
The USSR was officially an atheist country and, at least from the time of Stalin onwards, prohibited fag marriage.
It’s actually sad to think that our culture has degenerated below the level of Renaissance Popes and Soviet Comissars, but there you have it. The reason even these people never promoted homosexuality was because even they—at least from a perspective of Realpolitik—understood that their social cohesion depended upon strong families. Other governments understood it as well: that homosexuality compromised social cohesion.
LikeLike
Eric
To call everything a religious issue might be an exaggeration, but some people think they should try to make every decision they make pleasing to God.
If one is Christian, then one believes God wants us to love each other as He loves us. What issues of law involve is how we respect the rights of others. Therefore, our laws have much to do with how we treat each other. Do we love lawbreakers or hate them. Do we distinguish between the lawbreaker and the law he or she broke?
Now consider your approach. You insist upon using the term “fag,” and every time you use the term you insult a group of people. You judge them, and you judge them harshly. That is in fact what homosexual rights activist condemn, and they try to associate Christianity with such condemnation. Yet what Christians condemn is the sin and the vile insistence that “love” and “compassion” requires us to become accomplices in the sin. Christianity requires us to love the sinner and hate the sin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom:
Those are valid points but two need to be addressed;
1. There many valid arguments from religious standpoints against homosexuality, but those who favor it argue that opinions on these matters don’t constitute proof. My approach has been to argue against it with natural philosophy because the sheer natural reasons against it show that religious arguments aren’t even necessary.
2. I use the term ‘fags’ intentionally and deliberately to offend them. They are not in the least bit sensitive to our feelings; and throw labels at us like ‘hater’ ‘bigot’ and ‘superstitious fools’ at every opportunity. Like in the link I posted below, they freely blaspheme our faith (and desecrate churches, though this rarely reported in the media). They have no concern for our feelings or sensibilities: forcing us to tolerate them—and even endorse them—by suing businesses who refuse to comply; using our tax dollars to spread their propaganda to small children. In short, I see no reason to show them ANY respect. Their position is to destroy the civilization I wish to preserve. The two positions can’t be reconciled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric
1. I took issue with this statement: “I don’t see it as a religious issue at all.” If you want to argue against homosexuality based upon natural philosophy, I don’t object. However, I wonder if you fully understand the nature of the debate.
When we debate the nature of our society and what we want it to look like, we make and defend value judgements. What is at issue is what we value, and that is what the dispute is about. Look at our leaders. Look at what our government is doing. We have become a self-obsessed, self-indulgent people capable of throwing away trillions of dollars. What is worse is we abort babies just because some careless people regard them as a nuisance. To such a people, if it is not about “me”, of what use is marriage?
This is a soul problem. Hence, I don’t think we can stop same-sex “marriage” movement merely by discussing natural philosophy.
2. You think these people are behaving detestably? Then why would you want to behave like them?
Think about the difference between the man and the deed. The Apostle Paul persecuted Christians. How many was he responsible for killing and maiming? I don’t know, but those deeds became history. He could not undo them. What God did, however, was change Paul. And we have no doubt the recognition of his guilt humbled him.
Let God judge. Leave vengeance to Him. That does not mean we have to give what is holy to dogs or throw pearls in front of pigs. It just means we don’t want to behave like those whose behavior we despise, like vicious dogs or ravening pigs.
Oppose the evil deed. Turn the evildoer towards God. Hope and pray he accepts his Savior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In short, I see no reason to show them ANY respect.”
Eric, here’s the problem I see with that. To not respect those you perceive as your “enemy” is somewhat foolish because it empowers them, motivates them, and leaves you tempted to underestimate them.
To keep myself humble in the political world of today, I have to confront the harsh truth, no matter how misguided, foolish, etc I think the people in charge are, how much stupider were the rest of us to let it happen?
There’s a harsh truth in there and I see it in the manosphere all the time. We didn’t pay attention, we didn’t listen, we didn’t take responsibility, and today we continue to hand our power away by blaming everyone else.
The rest of the country is like, look at all those hostile, powerless, weak people over there saying mean things, vote for us, we’ll protect you from them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB, I so very much agree with your point, but I have to also defend Eric a little bit. From the Torah that we can read today, we see that “Jehovah” was particularly keen on being vengeful toward sodomites. They were supposed to inflame His anger moreso than other sinners, and (presumably) to fuel the fires of Gehenna moreso than others. That’s why the cultural use of “faggot” for male homosexuals developed–because it was propagadated, in the centuries after the Council at Nicaea, that homosexuals would be kindling for hellfire, e.g., “faggots” (which is/was used for firewood, and remains as U.K. slang for cigarettes).
I know it’s ugly, but there’s a long tradition behind it.
/hug
LikeLike
I’m not attempting to police Eric’s language, by any means. He is more than capable of looking out for his own self.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As somebody else mentioned, the media has so connected the term with the Fred Phelps kooks, that might be simply impolitic to use it.
Still, I don’t like the idea of treating them as anything but the enemies of civilization, which they in fact are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom;
I would also make the argument that Natural Philosophy teaches that religion is necessary for civilization too.
“When we debate the nature of our society and what we want society to look like, we make value judgements.”
For exactly that reason. Religion teaches men what the ideal is, and civilization is a process of striving towards that ideal. And here’s where the breakdown in terms is critical:
Savages are people who are ignorant of civilization. They are not enemies of civilization, but need to be converted to it.
Barbarians are anti-civilization. They should be resisted.
It’s considered politically-incorrect to say any of that, but Civilization can’t change its fundamental nature without ceasing to exist. The problem with our narcissistic society is that people believe it can: i.e, marriage can be between two of the same sex and that doesn’t change the nature of love or marriage (when it does in fact change it; and by changing it destroys it).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point, Eric. I once followed a discussion by a bunch of atheists who were creating a future imaginary utopia for themselves. I kid you not, they eventually reasoned their way towards the realization that they needed to invent something like….religion, or else they couldn’t have “civilization.” 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric
There are people who do bad things. You. Me. Everyone else. God is our judge. He understands our souls. All we can see and understand is what people have done, and that imperfectly. We can execute someone for a capital crime, but we still don’t have to call that person names. We simply say what he did, and that is enough.
With respect to this statement, I am not certain I understand you.
It seems like we agree that religion must be part of the debate. Yet you also said: “I don’t see it as a religious issue at all.”
Perhaps I need to know how you define Natural Philosophy.
LikeLike
“If that were true then we would have stopped when civil unions were authorized. ”
We tried separate but equal before. All laws must apply to and protect all people the same and under the same law. Some civil unions were not recognized by other states. So say a couple joined civilly were in a state that doesn’t recognize that. The parent can’t be covered under medical insurance, can’t take family medical leave, so many things.
Either everyone previously “married” is now civilly joined and all states must recognize equally the law or it is unjust. That is the problem. Though I have stated before I am in full favor of getting the state out of the word marriage. I am ok with every couple legally joined by the state being called joined or civilly union or whatever the term is and reserving the term marriage for churches and religious.
However the term marriage then has only a meaning to you and your faith and not in any way to the state. 🙂
LikeLike
Sometimes I have to wonder what it was like to live in ancient Judah under a king who honored God then see his son come to power and put up the old Ashera poles and start burning the kids in sacrifice to Molech. It’s hard to watch what’s going on these days but it’s nothing new. Wally makes a good point that “All have sinned” but at the same time marriage and sexuality is where the enemy is concentrating the bulk of his firepower right now so it’s only natural that we respond. It seems futile but God judges us (there’s that horrible word!) on the condition of our heart and our willingness to do what is right in His eyes, not on the practical results. No matter what we do or fail to do, He wins and there is no stopping Him.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Very well said!
It is peculiar. Homosexuals claim they desire people of the same sex because they have a genetic condition. Suppose that is true. Is it politically correct to call that genetic condition a defect? Perhaps not, but if two people of same sex want to have sex with each other, there is an obvious Darwinian problem.
Now consider how difficult it is to make a marriage work. Presumably either God or the survival of the fittest has design man and woman to complement each other. How likely is it that a man and a man or a woman and woman will remain compatible for long? How likely is that same-sex partners will remain faithful to each other?
Frankly, I could cite some statistical studies, I think they are just too political and agenda driven. So I won’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi IB! Hmm. Having taken formal training in logic, I’ afraid I have to disagree with your examples that, to you. show that Christ disallowed SSM. In the first example which concludes: “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” The final statement is the point of the quote. If i said that my cat was sprayed by a skunk,therefore I bathed her in tomato juice, I am in no way implying that cats can’t be rid of the odor other ways – because they can. The “therefore” states clearly that the point follows after the therefore. What is written before the the therefore is an explanation but cannot be assumed to be exclusive.
As far as Sodom and Gomorrah is concerned only sexual immorality is mentioned – that that includes SSM is your assumption IB – to me sexual immorality is sleeping with many partners even when one is married (to any one else) or using sex for purpose other than strengthening a relationship p such as sleeping your way to the Top. That applies to any relationship – SSM or regular.
All that said, these are not the most important arguments. The most important argument that Christ did not deny homosexuality is simple : He said nothing with using the words “same sex”. or “homosexual” or any other form of those words or any words with similar meaning. One thing Christ was known for was speaking the truth clearly and in a way that could not be misunderstood.He was a master at communication – basically He was built that way deliberately for obvious reasons. He said nothing that could be even construed as being anti- homosexual. When concepts are important they are repeated over and over clearly – like you pointed out that :judge was used over 700 times and homosexual not at all. At no point did Christ ever refer to any important concepts tangentially. If He wanted something known he said it out straight.
Furthermore when God was questioned about what was the most important concept that defined Him he answered with one word: Love. He did not specify any kind of love – just love. That being said one could quite reasonably extrapolate that the denial of love between consenting adults would be against the wishes of God.
Interesting argument IB – thanks for provoking thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you, Paul, sexual sin is sexual sin and immorality takes many forms, none less problematic than another.
You know I am compelled to try and convince you, just the same. 😉
If the scriptures I provided are not adequate, we can go onto 2 Timothy 3:16 which says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” So if all scripture is “given by inspiration of God”, than we know that Romans 1:24-27 which specifically addresses homosexuality, is “given by God.” So than is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and so forth and so on, all “given by God,” all addressing homosexuality and several other human behaviors.
We simply cannot make a reason based argument that scripture does not address the issues six ways past Sunday.
Love is a great argument however, and really the basis that all of theology should flow through. The thing is, love sometimes calls us to speak truths that people don’t always want to hear. It’s not necessarily loving to approve, validate, condone, something that is the opposite of what has been clearly laid out in scripture.
LikeLike
I read Romans 1 (all of it – I prefer to see the context) and i did not get the impression that it was focused on homosexuality, and in fact I have known many loving homosexual partnerships that I could honestly say did not fit the passionless description used in Romans. For instance Romans 1:25 – “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” Most of the SSMs that I knew were men and women who worshiped God in church and were thoughtful and considerate and caring and dedicated to each other.God fearing people filled with Grace. They did not fit the criteria in Romans 1:21- “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him.” The non-heteros that i knew all honored God.
In Romans1:29-31 unrighteousness is defined as:” They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” None of these qualities applied to any of the SSM’s I knew.
In the 700 words in Romans “…did not honor him as God…” or similar meaning phrases were mentioned no less than 7 times – on average once every 100 words. All the SSMs I knew were faithful to God and honored Him.
So by the criteria listed in Romans,.the SSMs met the standards of both godliness and righteousness.
Romans 1:26-27 speaks of non-relationship activities where sex is treated as an end in itself as opposed to an expression of love within a committed relationship – and it doesn’t single out homosexuality, although it does mention it in the context of godlessness and unrighteousness. A context that does not apply to the SSMs that I knew.
!Corinthians 6:9-says: “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Note two interesting points here: 1) men having sex with men is listed separate from “sexually immoral” – which quite clearly says that men with men does not fall into the category of sexual immorality and 2) Although it does specifically mention men on men (although it is clear that this is not sexually immoral and it does not even call it a sin – it says they will not inherit the Kingdom of God) and is very detailed in the list of ungodly behaviour, it does not mention women on women. That seems to be a deliberate omission which would imply that the issue is not, in fact, homosexuality but rather some other quality of men with men that is offensive. Well in fact there is other evidence that this logic has truth to it. You see this book was translated from Greek. At the time Greek armies were very powerful and their troops could be gone for sometimes even years from home. “Men with men” in English uses the word “men” twice, when in fact the original Greek did not,. It used two different words that represented one passive man and one aggressive man. This leaves a number of possibilities open for the meaning. It could mean that when away from home for extended periods (as the soldiers) men were not to substitute men with men for men with women in sexual matters. in other words if your a hetero don’t engage in homosexual encounters as this is clearly a sigh that the relationship is only for sex and not for love. Another possibility is that the relationship is structured around a strong man taking a weaker man, which is about power and not love. So it becomes clear then that the mention of men with men is not a disparagement of homosexuality but rather of sex outside of love. this was not the case with the SSMs that I knew – they dearly loved each other and had been in homosexual relationships since they were very young (implying a God-given trait not a relationship based on immediacy)
Even with all that said 1 Corinthians continues with 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.” Which seems to mean that they were all forgiven.
The passages from 1 Timothy were written by Paul (my namesake!) who was originally a solder and a great denier of Christ called Saul. He had an epiphany on the road and fought with God in a dream – and he won.. He then became a preacher for Christ who traveled around the country side witnessing for Christ. He was also the author of 1 Corinthians. Paul’s whole life before Christ was dedicated to the military and long campaigns where there were no women. His experience would then be mostly those issues faced by soldiers .- and heteros taking other men for sex in place of a woman would be such a problem. Again he does not mention women with women and again it does not seem as if he is railing against homosexuality but rather hetero men using other men for sex while away from women. This is one of his pet peeves.
All of that said (phew!) again Christ does not once mention homosexuality directly – and judge was mentioned hundreds of times. Christ never beat around the bush or implied truths – he was plain spoken and direct. If He had wanted to speak out against homosexuality – He would have said so with clarity. he did not.
Great post IB – thanks for the discussion and opportunity to speak. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, IB! Christ came to save. He definitely condemned sin, but always accompanied that disapproval with the way for the sinner to be redeemed: give himself to Jesus and cut out the sin! The “let him who is wiothout sin cast the first stone” story is equal parts condemnation of sin, and salvation of the sinner.
I’ve long thought that what is right is simply right, and tends to work on all levels. In other words: God set things up as they are, so what is right always works on the spiritual level… and on the temporal, secular, practical, legal, moral, logical, philosophical, and any other level. Generally it takes a pretty simple thought process to work it out.
Homosexuality’s a good thing? It’s normal? Really? Then, wouldn’t it be okay if all humans were to adopt the practice? Nope. If all people adopted homosexuality, the species would be extinct in a historical blink of an eye.
The gay rights movement did several major disservices to the world, but one of the worst was in continuing and extending the dishonesty of the various grievance groups out there. Homosexuals always said wanted society to accept their deviance and their abnormality, that they wanted “tolerance,” but then they demanded also that society redefine normality to include their aberration.
The problem, though, is that no such re-definition ever stops at the new lines. Others, observing how easy it was to get society to redefine normal, are even now demanding that we re-re-define normal to encompass dozens of new “genders,” man-boy “love,” polygamy and many more ridiculous things that we once rightly recognized as perversions.
Soon, what… rape’s just okay? Child molestation? Murder? Who am I to say that the serial killer is wrong? Maybe he’s just doing really, really late-term abortions. Who am I to judge that?
Yes, the morals that we have long understood to be self-evidently correct, are under attack, and it is right and good that we should defend them.
Best,
— x
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB:
It’s actually gotten so bad that the scum in American Academia have been ‘revising’ history to try and assert that the Bible actually approves of, and endorses homosexuality. Look at this type of horror advanced as Christian doctrine:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kittredge-cherry/rainbow-christ-prayer-hon_b_1616193.html
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the link, Eric. What is happening to Christian doctrine all over the place is rather distressing to me. I knew it was coming and yet I can’t believe what I’m seeing. The church I was married in now runs a non discrimination ad in the local paper and supports the rainbow flag. Where is the message of the cross, where is Christ? I’m all for hospitality and welcoming all sinners, but when appealing to two percent of the population takes precedent over that very foundational message of doctrine, something is all wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t believe it either. It seems like since the early 1990s, the Cultural Marxists have moved through the Anglosphere like a juggernaut, just gaining more momentum as they go. The Government/Media/Academia Complex is dominated by the Radical Left and they’re spreading the contagion through other institutions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am a bit lost by this one. However, homosexuality has come down to us through the ages. I don’t know about the view of Islamic clerics on this, but there have been homosexuals in the Muslim world through the ages. I don’t ever remember reading about homosexuality in Hindu scriptures, but Hindus have been homosexual as well..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on It's the Women, Not the Men! and commented:
Well said! And based on the truth, not assumptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the reblog, much appreciated.
LikeLike
My pleasure.
LikeLike
“No where are people called to be so open minded their brains fall out.”
Ha!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always return to the simple fact that God the Father obviously abhorred homosexuality, as witnessed by His most violent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and, the fact that Jesus was always an obedient Son, who always obeyed His Father’s will, even to His own agonizing death. So, by the time Jesus arrived on earth, homosexuality, unlike today, was considered a dead issue. So, there was no need for Jesus to specifically discuss homosexuality. His Father had already made His will on the matter very clear. So, what makes today’s women suddenly believe otherwise? Lesbian-led, non-Christian, radical, second-wave feminist ideology and the narcissistic, god-like, sexual arrogance of third-wave feminism! Both of which are proving to be destructive, depleted and lie-ladened, substitutes for American women’s former Christian faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can I just say how good this is…………..
So I will. This is rock solid and very good insanitybytes22. But It’s not surprising to see such a judicious handling of difficult things such as condemnation or judgement.
People will always be offended at whatever we say; may as well be straight up as you are here. As far as ssm though, certain things hardly need explained, as if the Lord needed a refresher course on ‘male and female created he them;’ ie, ‘one flesh.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
This one wonders…
How will the Bible look in a hundred years? In a thousand? The re-re-re-revisions that special-interest groups are coming up with now might become the new standard.
Think how easy it would be for the NSA, the major publishers and university archives, and government “diversity” agents to alter the sacred texts. It would be so simple for them to use “new linguistics scholarship” to justify altering “outdated” terminology and reinterpreting biblical passages to things that were surely “more correct” given their new standards.
Sure, there might still be a few decaying old printed bibles existing in someone’s great-grandmother’s attic chest, but by then, all of the churches and libraries and neuroweb sites in the world will have thoroughly discredited the radical notion that there was once a Bible, hundreds of years ago, that condemned homosexuality.
Imagine all that. Imagine children being born into that world, and presented from cradle to grave with rainbow-colored Bibles extolling the virtues of homosexual love and homosexual marriage. Imagine those children going to church, being surrounded by happy friends, and living their entire lives calling themselves Christians and knowing–completely knowing, to their deepest and most personal thoughts–that they were following Christ and following the Bible.
Imagine being transported forward to that time, and explaining to people that the Bible had been changed. Imagine them quoting scripture at you, in which God’s Word proclaims that it is error-free. When you tell them that was written in by the hand of gay scholars in the 21st century, they disparage you for being an insane conspiracist who would dare counter the Word of God. After all, it says right here in the Revised Global Leviticus that, “When any person lies with any other person in the spirit of love, it makes beauteous flesh and it pleases God.”
…
Have you imagined that world? Can you see how there are many, many “Christians” out there right now who would eagerly edit the Bible and create such a world? They might very well do exactly that. In fact, they’re trying to do that right now.
Now, I ask you, how could Christ protect you from such a deception? How could He make sure that, no matter how you were lied to–how many worldly fabrications and temptations might be created by the Pharisees and the bankers–you would always be able to find Him in your heart and know the right path to follow? Even when the Bible is only available through the “government cloud” service?
He could give you a conscience. A compass, a guide, a heart, a soul, with which you might evaluate anything you were ever handed which was called “scripture.”
Imagine now something else. Imagine a cruel imperial politician who kills several political opponents, and members of his family, in a quest for absolute power. He is a moneychanger and a great leader of moneychangers, and he molests children, steals food from the hungry, and is without compassion for those beneath his social caste. Imagine that this man learns that tales have been written, of Christ and the Father, and that these tales are inspiring people to resist him.
Then imagine that this man sends his agents across the known world to burn and destroy these tales. He executes those who follow Christ and the Father, and he assembles a great coalition of moneychangers to burn scripture and rewrite it in his image. Much of it, he saves, so that it will bear a passing resemblance to what people used to read. The rest of it, he changes to suit his purposes.
Now, imagine that you are transported more than a thousand years into the future, and everyone is reading this edited scripture. How do you suggest to them that Constantine the child-murderer added hatred and genocide into those sacred texts, and how do you help them follow their hearts, rather than Constantine’s corrupted verses, toward Christ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A-yep, your brain is even worse than mine 😉
“He could give you a conscience. A compass, a guide, a heart, a soul, with which you might evaluate anything you were ever handed which was called scripture.”
One of the amazing things to me about scripture is that the truth of it is always revealed in other ways, in the natural world, in our conscience, in science. Sometimes we as individuals, or even collectively, have to go out and learn why “God said,” but learn we do, every single time.
Scripture is not just words on a page easily edited, it is living, breathing water, read to you by the Author Himself. Even those who try to distort or misuse those words reveal the disharmony within their own selves when they try to promote such deceptions. I was thinking specifically of a couple of TV ministers of old, who exposed them selves long before they fell.
I was really blessed, because my faith didn’t originate from scripture. I however, am not alone, for centuries no one’s faith actually came from scripture because it wasn’t even available to the common man. We did that with songs and psalms and legends told around a fire.
The Word is so much more powerful than black letters written on a page. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
LikeLike
We’re seeing now–as someone else linked above–just how easy it is for powerful people to manipulate “scripture,” and for millions upon millions of people to later put their faith in that scripture, and defend it past the point of reason. We shouldn’t allow words to become our golden cow.
In less than a century, Scientistics have drastically changed the definition of homosexuality. Children now grow up being taught something very different from what was taught decades ago. The Bible has been used and abused the same way over a much longer time period.
When you’re analyzing your religious feelings, try to account for the vast subtleties in meaning attendant upon any designations. As to gay people, for example, there are the annoying, irresponsible, party-life gay people, who drink and rut and drug and commit suicide, who ape others’ traditions in insulting ways, and who garishly throw their own private choices into others’ faces. One can certainly see why that kind of behavior is a problem, whether or not it involves whatever we think of as “gayness.”
But then, there are also (maybe a much smaller percentage? maybe a larger one? who knows?) “gay” people who just want to live their lives in a relatively normal way. The couple of times a month that they’re physically intimate with their partner/”spouse”/whatever are irrelevant to society at large. Or maybe they never met someone, or maybe they were too nervous, or maybe they always wanted kids so they did the normal-person thing, etc. As far as those people go, even according to Constantine’s Imperial Bible, there’s no more harm to themselves or to society than if a married man and woman perform a non-reproductive sex act–which, as we all know, Christians would never consider doing.
There are clearly strong correlations, throughout western history, between homosexual behavior and disease, pedophilia, rape, war, and harmful social engineering. It can certainly appear rational, then, to collectively judge a group, or to curse one particular act, as a means of efficiently addressing the latter social problems. But that was the genius of Jenome, and then of Constantine and Muhammad: by using bad examples to emotionally stir people to collective judgment.
That kind of rationalization is similar to the ways that the American NSA has now rationalized spying on everyone in order to stop, say, Islamic terrorism. The Constitution, such as we know it, is long dead. Americans are not safe in their papers or persons, and their free speech and religious liberty is long gone, made subject to governmental control. And yet, the government still claims that it operates pursuant to “the Constitution.” The Constitution still exists, in the sense that we can go and read it. And there are millions upon millions of people out there–many of them very highly educated, experienced, and powerful–who will mangle the concept of reason itself in order to argue that the Constitution and NSA spying are reconciled to each other. What nonsense! But it’s a story they have to believe in, for they lack the strength of character to admit that they have turned away from the Constitution.
This is a tricky place to be in, because the cultural distortion in this time period is so heavy when it comes to “gay” topics. You have these tyrannical LGBTQ activist jerks trying to force everyone to adopt their own preferences, and then at the same time, you have these eerie “Christian” LGBTQ people who try to claim that the Bible is pro-homosexual because Yahweh/Jesus were only against “lust,” but not against “love.” That’s a ridiculous argument–if you accept Constantine’s Imperial Bible, you have to accept that homosexuality, particularly MxM, is one of the greatest sins…and you have to accept that exterminating the infants of a homosexual city is a just act.
Given that Constantine murdered his own child, and the way the Vatican has behaved since regarding pitting European royal houses against each other, the Imperial Bible has served its purpose well. We are now seeing Universalist Unitarians (or whatever else they call themselves) and government academics writing a new American Imperial Bible, in which homosexuality ceases to become a despicable act and a capital crime, and instead, in which heterosexuality becomes a despicable act and a capital crime.
Our hope is that, no matter what lies may be re-drafted into new holy books for another era, the people living a thousand years from now will be able to see past these twisted lies and revisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Our hope is that, no matter what lies may be re-drafted into new holy books for another era, the people living a thousand years from now will be able to see past these twisted lies and revisions.”
I find it extremely unlikely that we make it 1000 years into the future. Wouldn’t surprise me if Christ came back next week.
The number of attempts to edit the bible and well as the poor behavior of many Christians through the ages however, becomes a strong argument for not only the existence of God but also for His Divine intervention.
The fact that both Christianity and the bible have managed to survive somewhat intact to this day, in spite of the best efforts of many Christians, leads me to conclude that God has His hand on His own.
LikeLike
What would Christ do ? We all will find out soon enough on His return. Gay rights is another satanic way to create conflict, but not for long. Be happy ! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was solid. Nice job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahh but in the case of “marriage” in the USA it is mans law not biblical law. That is why should a priest/pastor/rabbi/imam “marry” you and forget the words “by the power vested in me by the state of (fill in the state) your marriage is not legal. We need to separate your belief from the “law of man”.
I did a whole piece of this already. Basically we have a constitution and it has two things important to our discussion.
1) Freedom OF religion means frankly you can believe as you like but you can’t force me by any means including laws to believe as you do. In the case of “marriage” perhaps it’s an unfortunate use of a word you see as some holy covenant when we are discussing laws made by humans and not god in this case.
2) Equal protections which states frankly no law can be made which doesn’t apply to every citizen equally. Marriage as a law grants rights, protections and privileges under the law. To exclude anyone from those same rights, protections and privileges is also illegal.
Unless some compromise is reached. Eventually the supreme court will need to hear an equal protections argument and just like separate but equal marriage will be changed forever.
Now I’ve also stated I am all for changing the word “marriage” to not offend my religious friends sense of morals but since no one seems to ever be willing to budge on the issue the law and it’s fate are now all but inevitable.
I would fully agree the state shouldn’t be involved in “marriage” at all and the term should be civil union or something for all and marriage could then be reserved for church. So say a Christian couple is civilly joined in church, they would also then be married (but no special state laws only married under god).
If we aren’t going to compromise and soon then “marriage” as a law will become same sex weather my religious friends want it to be or not. The entire debate is over a word because people want to see it as holy when in reality it is merely a law in the USA and there is nothing holy about it. Want proof of that? Captains of a boat can marry people, judges can marry people, justice of the peace can marry people and not one of these needs religious credentials to do so.
Something has to give and I am more than willing to go half way here. Hell Hawaii already recognizes my wife and I as “married” as does the Christian church where we were married “under god” including the words let no one come between what god has joined as one. So it’s not even all Christians standing united against same-sex marriage. It’s just a hang up on a word which is a law of man and happens to also have religious under pinning and meaning.
peace and love sister IB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle, I think your comments reveal how SSM really IS a religious issue. That may not be the narrative, but the narrative is false. If people are demanding full equality with heterosexual marriage than that means they want full church recognition and the entire concept of marriage re-defined.
You yourself say, “Hawaii already recognizes my wife and I as “married” as does the Christian church where we were married “under god”….” So people who try to argue that this is just about secular law are making a rather disingenuous argument. People say they want to keep religion and the church out of the gay marriage issue, and yet they still want to go back into the church and force the church to recognize secular law.
LikeLike
Wow so many misconceptions about what I said.
Yes we were married by a church and a pastor. He asked US if he could marry us when he learned we were looking for a simple JP. We didn’t seek a church wedding in the least but accepted his offer since my wife is also Christian and we’ve attended this church for some time now.
Marriage as a law also has a meaning to churches. It happens this church is open to the idea of SSM. Though I would never ask any church to redefine its ideals, values and morals. I do however demand laws made by man are equal.
My marriage is not recognized in most states but yours is. I don’t care about the religious component myself though my partner was very happy to have the church recognition. (She also knows not all churches will recognize the same and not even all Christian churchs with in the same denomination would recognize us as married nor would either of us ask such a thing.) However because the law of the USA (perhaps misworded as “marriage”) is the law all states should recognize and grant the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.
The example is. If we go to a state even on vacation that does not recognize our marriage and something happens requiring consent for medical treatment my partner couldn’t make those decisions for me nor I her. Why? Because only “married” people can do that. See the issue yet?
Marriage has two obvious meanings. 1) The legal one and that is the only one I’d see changed since it grants rights to both partners. 2) The religious one and I am fine with this point of view since your religious marriage grants me no rights at all.
There is a difference. I am just not one of those whackos who insist you change your definition of the word. Only that the nation as a law changes its definition of the word. Even if it changes the word in the process.
My marriage is recognized by “the state of Hawaii” but yet I can’t file married joint on my taxes federally? In any state which doesn’t share reciprocity with Hawaiian marriage law will deny me and my partner our rights under the law of marriage. That simply put violates the equal protections portion of our constitution.
So a compromise must be made and some people like me prefer to offer the olive branch rather than force our own views. We’ve already been civilly joined a decade ago (Married the Lakota tradition and god more than a decade as well age 16 to be exact and July will be 15 years for us.) and still can’t file joint taxes, still can’t add her to my insurance or me to hers, can’t pass property automatically and even with a will it can be easily contested unlike “marriage”. See the issue yet?
The issue is simple. It’s the dual meaning of the word.
Granted there are those in the GLBT movement (of which I nor Sarah am part of) demand you change your definition and sue for “discrimination”. Though there are arguments on both sides of that issue I just don’t buy it myself. You refusing to make my cake doesn’t harm me, there are 100 other places who will gladly accept the business. Though it would be nice if some of those businesses advertised as “Christian” so we could simply avoid asking these places to accept goods for tender.
It shouldn’t be about the “fags” but about people and not groups. For me to say all Christians are hateful of other cultures as some even among your friends are. Not all are. Why? Because Christianity like any group is made up of people and people are individual and not some lumped mass of robots operating in unison.
So my issue is not and never shall be with any Christian who says I can’t make your cake, cater your wedding, nor any chruch who would refuse to marry us. It is plain and simple with the law of the land and not the law as you see as gods law. As I said even a church wedding must say “by the power vested in me by the state of….” so it is the state and NOT the chruch which marries you. If they leave out those words then you have no rights under the state or federal government and they won’t accept your claim to those rights.
LikeLike
Aka- michele
Maybe I misunderstood, but you are a woman? And you speak of your ‘wife?’
Excuse me, but you can repeat this until the Atlantic runs dry, or when whales grow wings and live in birds nests, but it will NEVER be true, much to your chagrin.
And please, it is not a personal attack, just the facts of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I am female and my wife is female and we are legally married under the state of Hawaii. See you refuse to see the separation of church and state.
As previously stated. You can’t use the power of the state to enforce your religious and moral definitions on anyone else. So if marriage is a “religious” thing then the law is already unjust and illegal.
However since it is a law it must protect all equally or it violates equal protections.
it can’t be both in the case of the law which is the law of man and not the law of yours or any god.
LikeLike
Ok, at least I understood correctly.
Soooooooo, i want to change the meaning of ‘night’ and call it ‘day.’
I think all the owls are disenfranchised that they do not have the equal rights as the hummingbirds.
Will you be willing to join my cause to amend the word ‘day?’ Far too many night creatures take offense that they live in this thing called darkness………..
Yea I know, it’s absurd. That’s the point. So is same sex marriage.
LikeLike
To you it is absurd simply because you see only one definition. So let’s turn your argument around.
What happens in 30-50 years when Muslims are the majority and they say you must now pay them a tax just to remain Christian because Muslim law says you must? See there is exactly what you are doing to me.
Simple as that. Enjoy Sharia law my friend because you are setting a dangerous precedent. Allowing single faith to define a law of man. It’s a dangerous slope.
LikeLike
One definition?
Uh hello, yea. The only one that matters. It kind of makes sense that He who made ‘male and female’ has every right to define the relationship. As the post above clearly demonstrates: ‘The TWO (ahem, male and female) shall be one flesh.’
You are working way too hard to fight common sense, while trying to justify that which can never be..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your definition is only good if you are Christian. I fight nothing. You are merely not seeing the legal side.
Does marriage by the state (and it is by the state) grant legal rights or protections of any kind?
LikeLike
Your first point:
Leaving Christianity out of the argument, and still nature slays your opinion.
“Male and female created he them’ is hardly denominational.
As I said, ‘Common Sense.’ You are ‘dancing’ all around the obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is because it still believes your way. You are still taking this religious stand and avoiding the question.
Does marriage as MANS law grant any rights? Answer it hmmm?
LikeLike
Sweetheart, detach and don’t take this personally. This is pure political thought.
Why in the world would a non believer, a non Christian, who does not believe in the traditional definition of marriage, seek a church wedding and church marriage? One simply cannot do that and than try to call it secular and preach to people about the separation of church and state.
“You can’t use the power of the state to enforce your religious and moral definitions on anyone else.”
No, what you’re really saying is that the secular world can use the power of the state to force their non belief on churches.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No that is not at all what I am saying. Let’s start over. Do you see that marriage grants rights by the state and federal government as the law marriage does?
See I see the two definitions one a legal one by the government and one a religious one from your holy book. But we aren’t talking about the church view. We are talking about equality under the law.
Not once have I nor any average gay or lesbian person I’ve know sought to force churches to do anything.
Last I am not a non-believer, I am just not a believer in Christ. To apply the same logic since you don’t believe in Allah, or Budda or (pick one) you would be the non-believer. But since you believe is a god you are a believer.
I choose the dictionary version of non-believer: “a person who does not believe in something, especially one who has no religious faith.” But see I have a faith so I am a believer just not in the same way you are likewise you aren’t in the same way I am. 🙂
We do need to understand there is mans law and as you see it gods law of marriage. I’ve already said so let’s change the legal name which ends the debate about the word marriage. If we don’t then sooner or later the courts will hear an equal protections argument as they did in Massachusetts and the law was changed and rightfully so. It is currently awaiting circuit courts and then supreme court. Once there the law changes for the very reasons I’ve already given. Then it’s to late to change the name.
LikeLike
I’m not mischaracterizing anything. People want full marriage rights recognized by all 50 states, plus the federal government, and acknowledged by the church of their choice. That’s what equality means, the same and equal to heterosexual marriage.
People have been trying to argue that this is a completely secular issue. That is a deception, nobody ever seeks partial, respectful equality that honors the rights of others to perceive them as anything less. To suggest such a thing is actually irrational. In flies in the face of human behavior and common sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“and acknowledged by the church of their choice.” <–wrong I have made this very, very clear in my message.
It isn't about the church at all and is ONLY about the states and federal government laws.
"In flies in the face of human behavior and common sense." Yes equality under the law of man does indeed fly in the face of human behavior. Just like brandishing people who aren't christian as savages. When asked to define savage they say written language, culture ect… Yet we had everything you could name as Lakota but still are savages? See more double speak.
The law of man as it applies in the USA must be equal and cover all or it is unconstitutional and will change. I am under no illusion it is an uphill road nor am I under any illusion there are extremists in every group of people who get all the press. But because you are white does the KKK speak for you? No. New black panthers don't speak for all black people. The westbourgh church doesn't speak for all Christians. And the GLBT people don't speak for me and many who just happen to fall into a group.
So do I seek equality under state and federal law which grants legal rights to the partners? You betcha. Do I seek to force your church to accept me? Nope.
LikeLike
Pingback: Supreme Confusion | Freedom Through Empowerment
I don’t agree with you at all, but you’ve clearly explained a perspective which, to a large degree, has baffled me.
LikeLiked by 1 person