Posts Tagged ‘Bible’

A Facebook friend of mine responded to something I posted with the following:

” If my bible is correct, God made us all the same and loves us all. So with that in mind, regardless of being gay, straight, cross eyed or whatever, God loves us all. God made us all. We are all perfect in his eyes because he does not make mistakes.”

Let’s get to the point:  This is total nonsense and not supported by the Bible.

The best lie has a seed of truth and there is a seed of truth here—maybe more than one.  Yes, God made all of us and yes, God loves us all.  No, God does not make mistakes.  However, we are NOT all perfect in his eyes.  If we were all perfect in his eyes, then Jesus, as a perfect being, is no more or less than we are.  And if we were all perfect, then we would have no need for Jesus, perfect or not.

The writer was suggesting this argument with regard to homosexuality.  I still insist she is mistaken.

As a heterosexual male and as a Christian, I am not free to sin sexually.  That doesn’t mean I haven’t–doesn’t mean I won’t.  What it does mean is that I choose to live my life to the best of my ability in accordance with a book and a teaching that says certain things are wrong.  I don’t get to vote on it or to change the text to suit my inclinations.  However, I do have the right to ignore that book and do what I choose.  That’s called sin.  Homosexuals don’t get a pass either.  Sexual sin is sexual sin.

So let me go down a dangerous path:  Is autism perfect?  Is spina bifida perfect?  Is cleft palate or hemophilia perfect?  I don’t know anyone who would say yes, yet millions have been born with these conditions.  Science and medicine have worked to identify the conditions, study them, and research in search of cures.  If these conditions were “perfect”, then no need to cure anyone with them.  Yet one would contend that we were “made that way” by God if we were talking about homosexuality.  You can’t have it both ways.

Homosexuality is NOT normal and is not a standard God created in nature.  You may argue that there are homosexual examples in nature.  Show me two dogs with homosexual tendencies and I’ll ask you to show me the pedigree of that dog.  I’ll guarantee that you cannot prove mans’ intervention over millennium in creating the breed even if it’s a mutt.  Show me two wild animals exhibiting homosexual tendencies and I’ll show you the same species licking its own rectum—and then I’ll ask you how their behavior relates to humans!

We are not mere animals, relegated to base instincts.

We are God’s creations, made male and female for the propagation of the species.  Sometimes that special privilege of creating offspring doesn’t work.  That’s because we’re NOT perfect.  We live in a broken and sinful world and have broken and sinful bodies.  The same God that so many hate, despise, and reject allows us to choose our own paths.  From time to time, those paths are evil.  Occasionally, they’re hurtful to others.  And there are times that what we do impacts others beyond what we can comprehend.  But don’t blame God!



Read Full Post »

It seems that as an NPR listener (but not supporter), I’m barraged on a regular basis with stories about same-sex couples and their plights as they seek one thing or another on a road to parity with traditional, non-same-sex couples.  The coverage has gotten me to sit down and reason through the arguments for and against same-sex marriage.  What I am NOT going to do here is to trot through the religious arguments, or even the “nature” arguments on the topic.  Not relevant here is a discussion on the basis for homosexuality either, or its history in civilization.  What is relevant is what I see as the coming legal response to the issue based on the US Constitution.

Disclaimer 1:  I am not a Constitutional expert.  Then again, I doubt that you are either if you are reading this.

Disclaimer 2:  I do not support same-sex anything.  But that’s not the point here.  It is important for you to keep in mind though as you read on.

Same-Sex Marriage has to become the law of the land!

Federal courts must find in favor of plaintiffs that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

(Remember the disclaimers)

The very nature of this Republic and its Constitution necessitate such an outcome.  Here’s why:

1.  Freedom of Religion:  The leading reason people who are opposed to same-sex marriage will give is that “God created marriage as an institution between one man and one woman”.  The basis for this comes from Genesis (which has no mention of the recent mythological Lilith) in which God created Adam and Eve.  Despite the numerous accounts of men having multiple wives—which didn’t mean God endorsed that, only that men did it—the Bible maintains a one man-one woman ratio as the normal pattern for marriage.  Exceptions can be found under Jewish law for taking the widow of a family member as a wife, but this was a matter of social welfare within the society.

Clearly, this view on marriage is a Judeo-Christian view or more simply put, a religious view. For the courts to consider this position, an argument would have to be presented on religious grounds.  A finding in favor of this argument is tantamount to Congress making “a law respecting an establishment of religion”.  It would be an unconstitutional finding.

And more so, Jews and Christians do not want marriage defined for them by Muslims, Hindus, or for that matter, certain sects of Mormons.  Marriage cannot be defined by a church or a religion and simultaneously be Constitutional.

2.  Biology:  A biological argument—that is, arguing that a species consists of male and female for the purpose of procreation—asserts that the only reason for marriage is for just that:  Procreation.  Yet there are many who marry, even heterosexual couples, who cannot have children.  And there are those who do not want children.  If procreation was the only reason for marriage, there would be a lot fewer marriages.

At the heart of this argument are three points:

a.  God told Adam and Eve to multiply

b.  The Catholic church taught that sex was only for procreation

c.  God created the sexes and designed the male and female biology in such a way as to show us how the two are designed to be together and function as one.  This cannot be replicated on a physical or spiritual level in same-sex couples.

Each point rests on a religious base, taking us back to the first argument about the Constitutional nature of bans on same—let’s call it what it is—homosexual marriage.  (If we say “hetero”, we say “homo”.  If we say “same”, we say “non-same”.  Let’s stick to similar descriptors from here out!)  Bans cannot be based on a religious argument and simultaneously be Constitutional.

3.  Civil Precedence:  Marriage in the United States has been a civil matter longer than anyone alive today can remember and I doubt that there is much available, if anything, that would show it to have ever been just a religious matter.

Marriages today are licensed by civil authorities.  A clergyman who officiates over a wedding even says “by the power vested in me by the State…”.  Without such power, that officiant has no authority to join anyone in matrimony, Holy or not.  The couple as well must must present their proof of civil licensure to be married.

Face it:  In the United States, our laws dictate that marriages begin as a civil matter and if divorce occurs, end as a civil matter.  Indeed!  Many marriages are entered into outside of any church or religious setting and church officials have no role in the divorce proceeding.

Conclusion:  In a quick review of marriage and a layman’s view on the Constitution and the law, I would have to conclude that marriage in the United States is a civil matter, defined by laws that must not lean towards the establishment of any religion.

On the other hand, Holy Matrimony is that special institution created and endorsed by God, the Creator, and it cannot be replicated by homosexual couples no matter how many laws are written to give them civil rights.  One must not confuse the authority of the so-called greatest nation on earth with the overwhelming authority of God!

Yet, it seems as though many in denial or rebellion against God’s authority seek approval and justification through man-made authorities.  They will get what they seek.  America is on a permissive path that will only widen over time.

Prediction:  Once marriage is no longer defined as being between one man and one woman, the next minority seeking parity will come to the fore.  It may be those seeking plural marriage, or maybe a group seeking some other variation.  Let’s consider plurals for a moment.  If marriage is not defined as being between one man and one woman, what is that definition?  Who gets to decide?  Is it one man, one man?  One man, two men?  One man, two women?

Someone will have to answer these questions and will not be able to lean on religion or religious opinions in doing so.  That’s what has already gotten us same-sex marriage bans and we see those being knocked down.

It was unfathomable just 50 years ago that we’d be here, yet we are.  So before you dismiss the “slippery slope” argument about a permissive view on the nature of marriage, we should consider how ridiculous this would have seemed had I made a prediction in 1963 that same-sex marriages would be legal in any state in 2013—fifty years hence.

Read Full Post »

Fair Share

Can someone please tell me how much a “fair share” is?

It seems to have been the catch phrase of the recent general election.  The sense I got from the argument is that “fair share” means something like a graduated scale of ability.  Because one makes more, he or she should pay more.  And since a fixed rate—which seems fair to me—could cause a wealthier person to make a smaller sacrifice than a less-well-off person, you cannot achieve a “fair share”.

In numbers, a person with $1,000,000 and required to pay 10% will pay $100,000.  A person making only $100,000 will be required to pay $10,000.  Both are left with 90% of what they had but for some reason, there are people who think that $90,000 just isn’t enough for the second person to retain.  Or if so, then $100,000 wasn’t enough for the wealthy person to pay.  He has a lot more, let him pay a lot more.

So what’s fair?  15%?  20%?

Who’s to say?

Even if you take a person like Warren Buffet, is it really right to let him determine the rate?

I believe the fairest share is a flat rate.

Again, a Biblical World View:  When the people of Israel were told to give, they were told to give 10%.  From Abraham to Zephaniah (A-Z), each paid 10% regardless of his/her wealth.

A flat rate is supportable Biblically but there were also other financial principles that were given that aren’t followed today either.  Imagine forgiving debt for everyone after seven years!

God actually told Israel that there would be no poor among them if they followed his statutes.  Of course, they didn’t and neither have we.  Our poor are increasing in numbers and our governments–Godless entities—struggle to fill that void.

Deuteronomy 15:4-5
New International Version – UK (NIVUK)

4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.

Read Full Post »

A friend asked me recently about God’s stance on homosexuality.  I wish I had answered him better.  One thing I often stress to people is that sin is sin.  Homosexuality is a sin but is no greater or lesser sin than those committed sexually by heterosexuals.  There are no pet sins from a Biblical perspective.  Actually, from a Biblical perspective, there are only three types of sin.  They are those (1) stemming from pride of life, (2) lust of the eye, and (3) lust of the flesh.  We can summarize these as Pride, Greed, and Lust.

I believe a Biblical world perspective demands that we view sexual sin through these lenses.  The type of sexual sin has little to do with it.  “Lust of the flesh” takes a view of accepting whatever feels good.  In this, people accept a wide range of activities even though Biblical teaching and civil laws may prohibit them.

When talking about civil laws against homosexual activity, or the absence of civil laws condoning homosexual relationships, some of us heap paedophilia and bestiality into the mix.  Those who have a more liberal view often find that distasteful and object.  The point they miss is that while there are laws against paedophilia and bestiality—many find the acts detestable—it wasn’t that long ago that the same could be said across the board about homosexuality.  I believe it is only the numbers of people who now find homosexuality acceptable that has shifted this.  In time, I expect the same shifts to occur for children and animals.  The emotion behind the argument—the law shouldn’t be able to tell me who I can and can’t love—leaves the doors wide open for any love to be justified.  The logic behind it—we have our inborn and a natural predilection toward sex—begs for all to be accepted for their immutable nature and sexuality.

Well, based on my friend’s question, I went back and read the chapter in Leviticus which most famously decries male homosexuality.  These were laws given to men by God through Moses, not by Moses or the priests.  It details several other sexual prohibitions as well which we generally do not question:  Incest and bestiality.  It also addresses sexual rivalries and sexual hygiene.  And it touches on homosexuality.

One thing I find interesting about this is that God told Moses to enforce these for the Jews—God’s followers.  He did not tell Moses to go to the neighboring heathens to straighten them out.  He said to not be like them if people want to be God’s people.

Maybe that lesson is here for today too.  If we want to be God’s people, let’s not do and be like the heathens around us.  We are to set ourselves aside and apart from the world.  If we can reach someone and bring him or her into the fold, great!  But we are not under a mandate to go change the ways of the world.  We are told in the New Testament to hold accountable those among us who still live as if in the world though.  A true Believer who has a heart towards God and an interest in living as God would have him or her live—has nothing to do with homosexuality.  If he or she is ensnared, we should gently and in Christian love try to help them.

One more thought:  The world has hostility towards God and his statutes.  But imagine for a moment a world living sexually as if God’s laws were unbreakable.  Within a generation, there would be:

  • No epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including
  • No AIDS
  • No rape
  • No incest
  • No affairs
  • No adultery
  • No abortion
  • No pornography

The world system would never stand for that!  It wants its fun without any consequences!  Well, so do the child molesters and animal lovers.  After all, who’s to tell them who or what they have a right to “love”?

Read Full Post »

The last time we heard about sex in a headline-catching manner from the White House, it was Bill Clinton denying having had a sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinski.  Until now.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, President Barack Obama made a statement of his personal view on same-sex marriage.  With staffers who are in committed relationships and raising kids, and having gay and lesbians serving in his military—for that matter, having friends of his daughters with same-sex parents—there’s enough reason to say that it’s time to accept the right of same-sex couples to be able to marry.

What the President did not do is to endorse a Federal measure.  Rather, he did endorse states’ rights in determining their laws with regard to marriage.  Even so, the pendulum will likely swing more quickly in the direction of same-sex marriage, especially in this election year with the President coming out in favor of the “institution”.

So it’s time to get behind the President.

OK, so I’m obviously NOT serious!

This was an election year stunt!

This was to bolster support for the Dems following the results of Tuesday’s primaries.

This was a man denouncing his previous faith-based stand against something—and hiding behind an unrelated mention of Jesus and a flimsy reference to “do unto others…”

He previously hid behind “faith” but back-tracked saying he thought civil union was adequate.  This is like saying that murder is Biblically wrong—I thought beating the person senseless was good enough.

This is the most ridiculous situation I’ve seen occur in the White House.  The acceptance of the President endorsing same-sex marriage on national TV—and against the back-drop of the Oval Office—should prompt an outcry.  He was asked but certainly was prepped for the questions he’d face.  The question could have been eliminated or not answered.  He chose to answer it with what was a very prepared answer designed to touch on several emotional points and to engender him to the LGBT community and its supporters.  The timing is no mistake, coming on the heels of Joe Biden’s widely publicized “gaffe”.  I suggest that it was no gaffe but rather carefully orchestrated foreshadowing, setting the stage for today’s news.

On the flip side, the outcry against Kirk Cameron for also asking a question in a televised interview was deafening.  A private citizen, in charge of only his own family, suggests that homosexuality is not natural and he is maligned by multitudes.

Perhaps the President is right.  The position on same-sex issues may be generational.  Those of an older generation when morals were more publicly promoted tend to oppose the issues while those who are the offspring of a liberated, free-sex, progressive generation are themselves rather permissive and accepting.  Remove morals thoroughly enough from a generation and the next one is destined to view those same morals as antiquated and out of step with society.  We’re there!

Just yesterday, I was in a Facebook discussion with a young woman who finds nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.  She stands on the principle of not wanting to tell people who they can or can’t love.  Not the point.  Same-sex marriage is not about who one can love.  At heart, it’s about equality with heterosexual couples, whether for taxes, health benefits, death benefits, or just feeling “normal” or “equal”.

My counter-point is this:  While not in any way equating homosexuality with any other sexual proclivity that society still shuns, I am suggesting that the argument of not wanting to impose restrictions on who can marry has a logical conclusion that equates to “anything goes”.

Most anti-discrimination laws in the land include “age, race, religion, national origin, etc., etc.”  Sexual orientation has made its way onto the list in some jurisdictions.  So let’s apply the two in tandem:  We’re not going to say a couple cannot marry because of race.  We don’t have barriers for religion although some groups may choose to stay separate.  Similarly, we don’t put barriers up around national origin, etc.  BUT, when it comes to marriage, we do have rules on age.  OK, not about the 70+ year-old and a 20-year-old, but there are barriers against persons under 16 in most states.  Indeed, we have laws against sex with those past the age of majority and a  minor.  It’s only a matter of time before this barrier comes down too.

When we move to the left and accept more permissive positions, especially from a platform of not imposing moral guidelines on others, then when those who truly offend us want their way, we have nothing to stand on.  When someone wants to marry a 10-year-old, one could say that age is just a number—who are we to say who the person can or can’t marry?  A man and his dog?  Again…

There have to be moral guidelines or society falls apart.  Society won’t fall apart over same-sex marriage, underage sex, or bestiality.  Society will fall apart because morality will be one day defined by every person for himself, herself, and itself.

So it’s time to get behind the President.  Let’s get behind him and push him right out of the White House!!!



Read Full Post »

Alex Haiken.

This fellow blogger commented on one of my posts a while back which is how I came to know of him.  He claims to be Jewish, Christian, and Gay.  I’ll not argue any of those points because that’s not where I want to go.  What I found interesting in his posts and comments is that he does not accept that the sin of Sodom was a sexual sin and more specifically, denies that the issue there had anything to do with homosexuality.  Their sin was a lack of hospitality.

I’ll say!

Angels appear and the depraved, lewd, and lascivious men of the city invite them out for a very one-sided party!  Their intentions were anything but hospitable.  But to think God destroyed a city because people were inhospitable—sorry!  Can’t get my mind around that heresy.

Sodom (and/or Gomorrah) is/are mentioned 47 total times (distinct verses) in the Bible (NIV).  I’ll stay away from the Old Testament for this:  In Peter 2:5-7, we find:

5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless.

Since Lot was saved from Sodom, one would have to read this passage as saying that the problems with these two cities were (1) ungodliness, (2) depravity, and (3) lawlessness.   While I don’t see inhospitable behavior as rising to that level, some would say that they don’t see sexual immorality (in the form of homosexuality) in this either.  Perhaps not.  So let’s go to Jude 1:6-8 and read:

 “6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.

I read this passage to say that the sins of Sodom were (1) sexual immorality and (2) perversion.  They were ungodly people and their dreams (or ambitions and lusts) led to the (1) polluting of their bodies, (2) rejection of authority, and (3) abuse being heaped on celestial beings.  Remember the angels they wanted to be “hospitable” with?

I’ve not gone to seminary and I haven’t studied Greek or Hebrew.  Even so, I don’t think it takes a seminarian to see the truth of these passages.  We don’t need to look up the definition of “sodomy” to know what it means.  While homophilic dictionaries today may offer a nicer definition, it is what it is and has been understood to be since, well, since Sodom!  The truth of the Bible is understood better through the clarity of the Holy Spirit than through hours of classroom study and wishful exegesis.

Sorry Alex—revise the Bible all you want but it won’t fly here.  It sounds as if you are trying to justify the selfish gratification of the flesh.  You and others can bash us all you want as homophobic but no matter what the protest, homosexuality will never be natural, healthy, or productive.  You may want to believe it is or hope that it is.  However, it ain’t so just because you want it to be!

(Painting by James Tissot, 1836-1902)

Read Full Post »

It’s that time of year again!  Millions are looking forward to the brackets being played down to a championship battle between hoopsters, a process that fuels basketball hysteria known as March Madness.  In St Louis, there is an interesting take on it known as Arch Madness.  Cute!

March means a lot of things to a lot of people.  For one of my daughters, it meant seeing The Kooks in concert.  To another daughter, it means Spring Break.  To me, it means Bonus!  And to Kirk Cameron, it means something Monumental.  You see, on March 27th—and only on that day—a live event will be hosted in theatres across the country.  If there is no other movie I see this year, I want to see this one.

Never a big Kirk Cameron fan, I grew to appreciate him more because of his part in Left Behind.  And while I’ve moved away from the commercialism and fallacy of that story line, I realized that the courage of this young man was inspiring.  Here’s someone who was at one time the darling of the country and he’s taking a stand for what he believes in and speaking out on behalf of Christian values.  The icing on the cake was Fireproof with its anti-porn, pro-marriage, pro-faith, pro-forgiveness, pro-mercy message.

Here is a family man, a celebrity, and a Believer!  Here is a man who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in.  Here is a man who could just go his own way and be comfortable in his life—except that here is a man who is greatly troubled by what he sees happening in America.  In the movie, Kirk comments “There is something seriously sick in the soul of our country.”  One only needs to watch 5 minutes of the evening news, check out CNN’s US home page, or read the first few pages of the local newspaper (if you still have one where you live) to see the daily depravity and sickness around us!  For all the healthy tissue in this body called America, there are cancerous tumors and lesions throughout every vital system and organ.  The stench of sickness is in every town and city, every office, every school.  The voices that call out for spiritual change and moral revival are shouted down, cowed into silence, threatened with insult, injury, and loss.  In such a time, one who will still stand is a hero worth rallying around.  Let us hope such heroes today are not tomorrow’s martyrs.

If you see any ad for the movie, you will see a monument in the background.  You may not know it or recognize it.  I trust the movie will explain about it but in the meantime, here’s some information for you.  The monument is in Massachusetts.  It is called the National Monument to the Forefathers.  It consists of five large figures:  Faith (top and central), Freedom, Morality, Law, and Education.  Articles about it may be a bit confusing so here’s some help.  The top and central figure is an artistic representation of Faith as a woman—a personification.  She is pointing upwards figuratively toward Heaven.  In her left hand is the Holy Bible.  Already you can see why this is not a well-known monument.  Faith is something that many claim to have, just not in anything the Bible says or teaches.

Around the base of the monument, there are four extensions or buttresses.  On the top of each buttress is another figure, each being the personification of one of the following:  Freedom, Morality, Law, and Education.  Each is seated on a chair and on the sides of the chairs are carved, relief figures.  “Freedom” has a figure on one side of the chair representing “Tyranny” and a figure on the other side representing “Peace”.  Similarly, “Morality” has two figures, one on each side of the chair:  “Prophet” and “Evangelist”.  “Law” has “Justice” and “Mercy” while “Education” has “Youth” and “Experience”.  Again, each being represented as a person.  The relationship between figures is better explained here.

Last but not least, on the front of the buttresses and under the seated figures are four reliefs.  These reliefs represent scenes from Pilgrim history:  Under “Freedom” is a scene representing “Landing”; under “Morality” the scene portrayed is “Embarkation”; under “Law” is portrayed “Treaty”; and under “Education” is a scene commemorating the Mayflower “Compact”.

The foundations of the country are here represented in stone, denied today by the revisionists who prefer a Godless, do anything, allow anything, liberal and progressive society.  The virtues and values of this monument have no place in the America of the 21st Century.  Again, Kirk’s comments:  “As I look around I get this sinking feeling that we’re off track, that there’s something sick in the soul of our country.  I examine the fruit that’s hanging on the tree of America and I can see that it’s rotting. And that concerns me deeply.” 

The decay in America will not stay in the inner city.  It will not be tucked away in the corners of suburbia.  It will not respect your gated communities.  It will not be content with the morsels you hand it today when it can see the feast on your tables.  No, the decay in America will spread from sea to shining sea and sweep you up with it no matter how safe you think you are today!  We should all be concerned!

If only America’s Growing Pains were a sitcom!  Sadly, they are more akin to the throes of death.










And by the way, he’s right!  Homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy.  Stand with him on this or fall for anything!  And by the way, the Bible tells us that one day, many will fall for lies—that which tickles your ears and that which will sound so convincing so as to fool even the elect.  It doesn’t matter what his misguided, former costars say, they need your prayers as much if not more than Kirk does.  Kirk for his strenghening but those others for their state of being lost.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »