Heterosexual and Homosexual Equality

Defining of Terms

Heterosexual – one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex

Homosexual – one who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

Equality – the state of being equal

Homo is defined as “same”. Therefore all of mankind is known as Homo sapiens, and those (whether male or female) “who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex” are known as Homosexual.

Hetero is defined as “other or different”; thus all (whether male or female) “who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex” are known as Heterosexual.

[1] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both Homo sapiens.

[2] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both sexually attracted to other Homo sapiens.

Old Testament

Homo sapiens who commit adultery in sexual, Heterosexual relationships are worthy of death.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. [Leviticus 20:10]

Homo sapiens who have sexual, Homosexual relationships are worthy of death.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. [Leviticus 20:13]

[3] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both worthy of death if they partake in unlawful sexual relationships.

New Testament

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. [Mark 7:20-23]

Fornication – sexual immorality

[5] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both capable of allowing the evil within their hearts to defile them through fornication [sexual immorality; that which is unbiblical].

[6] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both worthy of death and can be given over to a reprobate mind by the wrath of God against the sin of their unbiblical, sexual relationships.

[Romans 1:16-32]

But there is no direction by Christ (the foundation of the New Testament Church) during His life to show that physical death should be carried out upon the Heterosexuals or Homosexuals guilty of sexual impurity. He does not display acceptance or dismissal of sin, but rather calls unto them to repent.

[7] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are both born with a sin nature (though the besetting sins may vary), having a desire to do the lusts of the flesh rather than the commands of God.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. [Romans 3:23]

[8] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they are only guilty of sin when they partake in sinful acts of adultery and fornication; not simply having the desire or inclination to.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

[9] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they can be forgiven by God for committing such immoral acts of adultery and fornication.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. [1 Corinthians 6: 11]

[10] Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are equal, in that, they must all repent and put faith in Jesus Christ to receive salvation and be forgiven of sin.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [1 John 1:9]

So, what we learn about God and the Bible is not that God is merely against Homosexuals, but rather equally against Heterosexuals and Homosexuals who take part in sexual sin. What is the difference? It is the giving in to the sin of the flesh (whatever that may be for any Homo sapiens), versus denying the flesh to partake in any sinful, sexual desire.

Homosexuals become transgressors when they take part in the sinful lust and act of sexual relationships outside of God’s determined counsel; likewise, do Heterosexuals become equally sinners when they entertain the thoughts and actions of sexual relationships outside of God’s Word.

By falsely attributing God as a respecter of persons, one will miss the equality of God’s wrath upon sin and His grace upon repentance; thus succumbing to the foolishness of the world, the snare of the devil, and the deadly desires of the flesh; whereby they shall die in their sins, rather than be born again through Jesus Christ.

A redefining of marriage will not nullify the Word of God nor justify the Homosexual, no more than a redefining of the terms adultery and fornication could cleanse the Heterosexual of such sins.

Heterosexual and Homosexual Equality can be found in God, whether by His wrath upon unconfessed sin or by His grace upon the repentant heart through Jesus Christ.

What’s Marriage to a Chicken?

I guess I am still somewhat naive when it comes to some things, as I had never really considered the possibility of a restaurant being forbidden to come to a city or state based on its view of marriage. I’ve witnessed some establishments being pressed against due to alcohol and those of indecent attire (or lack thereof) – but I figure those things have brought more heartache to the families, cities, and states in our country than marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps I’ve been wrong.

I honestly don’t know much about Chick-fil-A – but that they are closed on Sundays and do hold to some personal religious convictions – although I do eat there occasionally. From what I have read, Mayor Rahm Emanuel apparently said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” He further adds, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward.”

It appears the mayor clearly states that the values of Chick-fil-A are not only in opposition to the values of Chicago, but are also discriminating against a segment of persons. So, what exactly are the values of Chick-fil-A brought into question here?

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Looking at the above, the expressed values of Chick-fil-A are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that God would have mercy on those who try to redefine it.

So, the mayor has stated that Chicago neither limits the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, nor does he ask for mercy upon those who agree with his (and all of Chicago) values.

As for as, “discriminating” against anyone, I don’t believe I have read where Chick-fil-A has said they would not sell their food to those whose beliefs were in opposition to theirs.

I can’t help but see the hypocrisy in the idea where Boston Mayor Tom Menino claims (proudly, I’m sure), “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” How interesting, they are ONLY “open” and “inclusive” to those they wish to be; for they are neither being “open” or “inclusive” to Chick-fil-A. And, don’t give me the “well, Chick-fil-A isn’t being open and inclusive either”, because it is the mayor who is claiming they are the proud persons of an “open” and “inclusive” city. Does this mean that they currently agree with ALL the convictions of ALL other businesses (and those within them) currently in Boston? Why do I somehow doubt so?

Furthermore, we have “Alderman Moreno call[ing] Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic,”” according to the article. Why do we still have the overuse of the words “bigot” and “homophobic”? The very ones who claim one is bigoted [prejudice, extremist] because they believe the biblical and formal definition of marriage are equally prejudice and extremist against those who do not agree to their trying to redefine marriage. This Chick-fil-A fiasco is case and point. And just because a person does not agree with homosexuality does not mean they are "scared of" or "hate" homosexuals. [i.e. homophobic]

City Councilman Jim Kenney joined in the “intolerance” speech, and promotes a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.” How far have we come where standing firmly on the principle definition of marriage (that being between a man and a woman) is now “anti-American”? Every single American has the liberty to join in marriage. I don’t believe any Christian is standing against persons wishing to get married. The stance is against the REDEFINING of a scared institution (called marriage) by those who would wish to embrace what it was never intended to include (namely homosexuality).

Instead of using the name calling of bigot and homophobe through intolerance and the pressure to withdraw person’s freedom of speech, perhaps the homosexual should consider their ideals and create their own defining terms not already taken. Or, better yet, plead for the “mercy” Chick-fil-A has graciously asked God to grant them on their behalf, and refrain from the hate speech toward those who do not hold to their view.

Regardless of Chick-fil-A’s stance on marriage, I do not find any articles whereby they have denied chicken to a homosexual or even those who choose to work on Sundays.

What is marriage to a chicken?

It’s the only way to get those good sandwiches and nuggets at Chick-fil-A. ;o)

Church League Approves Softball and Denies Bisexaulity

Reading FoxNews.com today, I came across an article entitled: Pastor's sexuality splits Missouri church softball league. James Semmelroth Darnell is apparently the current pastor of St. John United Church of Christ in Saint Clair, and feels that persons having issue with his confession of being bisexual is something that “shouldn’t be happening in this day and age.” I ask the question: Why?

Although I can understand the Baptists churches reasoning, in this post I am concerned less about the apparent issue of whether or not other churches would participate in a softball league with his church and more so about his position of pastor – one who professes they have repented of sin, put faith in Christ, lives by the bible, and preaches the gospel – all the while taking no issue with having a scripturally condemned lifestyle or vocalized ideals.

The article declares, “Darnell, for his part, said his sexuality will not affect his ability to lead his congregation off the field.” Do they not read or study the bible? Perhaps the gender neutral versions pervert the nature of scripture against such perversion, but I have never read them so have no true knowledge of where they stand on such matters as sexual orientation. How can sexuality not affect a pastor’s ability to lead his congregation? Either the sexuality of a pastor (whether in private or public) is in line with scripture, or out of sync with scripture and literally God himself.

I know people who are also Church of Christ and would equally agree that scripture condemns any relationship outside of a man and a woman, and there are numerous examples of where persons are and will be punished (by God) for their rejection of such truth. The only true “alternate lifestyle” is if one so chooses not to marry at all.

I am not advocating the mistreatment of those who refuse to obey scripture (even while they claim to believe and preach it), but do believe we should stand firm on the authority and foundational truths of scripture and not the modern man’s perversion of it – and not merely in secret. I will not recount the many references one can find in scripture – as you may take time to read past posts concerning such a topic here – but would find it interesting how a pastor who actually uses the bible can proclaim our holy God is okay with the joining of a man-man or woman-woman in holy matrimony or relationship.

The issue is clearly less about softball, and more about what is truly a biblical lifestyle.

Being Granted the Right to Marry Gives One the Liberty to Divorce

For some time now, there has been much debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry, but what about the liberty to divorce?

Yes, I am a Christian.
Yes, we believe the Bible.
Yes, the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, the Bible says divorce is sin.
Yes, Christian people divorce.
** I am fully aware scripture gives some grounds (if you will) for divorce, though it does not state one must divorce or that one should look for reasons to divorce.

Now that we’ve gotten past that argument, let’s proceed with the ideals of those who do not believe what the Bible teaches but demand homosexuals be given equal rights within the already defined term: marriage.

I found this article today which talks about a lesbian couple who were married in 2008. They were apparently “among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008.” In 2010 one of them said, "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older." Presently, they are seeking a divorce.

What happened?

How can two persons having a relationship for 18 years + fight so hard for 7 years for what they claimed to be equal rights + believe God must have wanted it for them = even consider the possibility of ending such a liberty after a mere 3 years on the basis “"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.”?

Why can’t persons (or rather, why do persons choose not to) fight for their marriage as much as they fight for the right to marry in the first place? If God wanted them to marry, does He now want them to divorce? How scripturally based is this? If one is going to use God’s name, then they need to acknowledge and obey His word. And this goes for the heterosexual marriage just as much as the homosexual unions. How many times is God/rights used to justify both the marriage and the divorce?

My point is this: What purpose did it serve for these persons to fight 7 years for a right they were only committed to for 3 years? Same holds true for those who live together for years, only to divorce shortly after marriage. Why are we so prone to leave, rather than to cleave?

When we see marriage as a right, then we view divorce as a liberty.

Marriage is a privilege: A sacred opportunity instituted by God between a man and a woman, giving the couple the honor of sharing their lives together in a committed relationship.

It’s interesting (and rather sad) how something worth fighting for to obtain as a right can be easily dismissed as worthless by liberty. May God help us!

Born Again, Again? Unto Homosexuality, Really?

Sadly, we read of yet another ‘Christian musician’ who claims to continue to hold true to Christianity in one hand, while grasping homosexuality in the other. Some time back it was Ray Boltz, and today it is Jennifer Knapp. Is it not puzzling how we can claim to serve God as faithful servants, while embracing that which He condemns in His holy word? Such is not limited to Christian musicians or to homosexuality, but to openly ask or demand the world (or fans) to embrace the blatant hypocrisy as being humble seems quite self-serving.

Jennifer states: "I hope that the defiance does come across as humble," she explained. "If there's any frustration, it's trying to politely break the yoke of being asked to be something that I just can't be, and with all humility go: 'Just please be kind when you discover the truth.' It's kinda all you can do."

Yet boasts: "I'm definitely getting a lot more friendly winks from the girls (at her concerts) than I have in the past!"

And jokes: "Anyone who has a decade of celibacy has 'complete loser' written on their back” – ‘although she still respects those who do abstain.’

At least, she declares (regarding her new CD), "I just wouldn't find it respectful at all to say, 'Hey, this is something that you want in your store next to your Jesus statue,'" she said. "It would just be disingenuous to try and convince someone that they needed to do that."

“Still, Knapp considers herself a "person of faith" and recoils at the suggestion that she is turning her back on the church”… so, I ask, if living a lifestyle contrary to scripture does not constitute a life of immorality and turning ones back on the truth of God… what does?

When we sin, we are choosing to disobey, rebel, dishonor, and reject the truth and wisdom of scripture (God’s holy word). How else can we describe our actions and current state as any other way but turning our back on God, the church, our faith? Though one may sing with the voice of an angel, marvelous songs of praise to God and our Savior Jesus Christ, it is but naught having a life in opposition to it.

How sad, though no longer surprising, to hear professing Christians describe the biblical Christian lifestyle as a “yoke of being asked to be something that [one] just can't be”, yet oddly feel completely free to live a life contrary to it. May we all judge ourselves, aligning ourselves with the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God, repenting of the broad way wherewith with have walked, and return yet again unto the straight and narrow path of righteousness.

Another Perverted Soul Embarks On Gravely Misrepresenting Christ

According to this article at FoxNews.com: ‘Residents of Stephenville, Texas, say they're furious that a local university will allow the performance of a play in which a gay Jesus shares a kiss with Judas and marries two apostles in a same-sex ceremony.’

It always amazes me when persons take not only a flawed premise (which most, if not all of us, are guilty of doing at some point or another), but also an outright denial of truth; to strive not only to misrepresent the teachings and person of Christ, but to go so far as to try and twist that which is good into that which is evil, merely to justify their own depravity. Isaiah says, ‘Woe’ to such persons and such thoughts.

Oddly, as controversial as the topic of homosexuality is today, given the clear instruction against the perversion in scripture – whereby many atheists even acknowledge such teachings – (Genesis 19; Leviticus 20; Romans 1), along with the fight of trying to redefine marriage in America, it is interesting that John Jordan Otte (student-director) would say the reasoning behind his production of the play is: ‘to "bring people together" and help gain acceptance for gay Christians.’

Here are just a few problems with this line of thinking:

1. Who in their right mind would believe that a homosexual depiction of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom thousands upon thousands hold as the Holy Son of God, would have the potential of bringing together the sheep among the goats?

2. There may be professing Christians who practice homosexuality, but it is still a sin of which needs repentance, and clearly is not and will not be justified or accepted by God or His Word, nor should be by His Church. (* note, I said the sin)

3. The misuse of biblical characters into a lifestyle contrary to scripture, history, etc. is the direct result of a depraved mind with the purpose of gaining attention to oneself by corrupting history and defamation of character; just as it would to create a modern movie of depicting Democrats and/or the President (non-homosexuals) as homosexuals. Who would stand for such, claiming it were merely art?

Although John Jordan Otte claims to be a ‘devout Christian’, as he believes, ‘"I am not attacking anyone in choosing this play. I want people to see and understand another side to faith. I want us all to know that unconditional love means just that -- unconditional -- and I believe tolerance is a key message in this play. None of us, not one of us, should ever feel alone or separated from God or whomever we believe in,"’ he clearly misses the message of the scriptures that mankind is lost and dead in trespasses and sin, out of fellowship and separated from God, under the wrath of the Almighty.

While he wishes for us to see ‘another side of faith’, namely unconditional love, he fails to share one must also have repentance. Unconditional love is not God allowing mankind to do whatever we choose, especially in direct contrast to His Word, as if demanding God overlook our rebellion and rejection of Him and His righteousness; yet He embraces us nevertheless. Unconditional love is the Father sending the Son to live a holy life, suffer the death of the cross, with His resurrection from the grave granting forgiveness of sin, the restoration of fellowship, with the promise of eternal life to all who repent and put faith in Christ.

It is one thing to sin in ignorance, and quite another to transgress willfully with knowledge. A ‘devout Christian’ should know the difference, and quickly acknowledge our sin and repent before God. Although ‘freedom of speech’ may give rights to one to pervert the person and teachings of Christ in this life, no such clause shall save the wicked in the next.

F- Biology Confusion

The Bing search posted the other day on the front page of MSN read, Another Pregnant Man.

It further states, ‘The man is Scott Moore, who grew up as Jessica. His parents helped him make the transition to being male at a young age.’ According to the New York Daily News, Scott (aka Jessica) apparently told his/her parents that (s)he ‘realized he wanted to be a man’ around 11 years old. But, because (s)he is actually a female, (s)he had to start taking male hormones when (s)he was 16 years old. Although they did remove some female anatomy, the cost of surgery meant (s)he could not have the ‘full sex reassignment surgery’; therefore, (s)he ‘still has female reproductive organs’.

Moore’s partner Thomas, was born as the female named Laura, but ‘underwent sex reassignment surgery last year’. Thomas has two children ‘from a previous relationship with a woman who has since passed away.’

This story is just so bizarre, and apparently is not the only one of its kind. Just looking at the facts presented, how can one claim such is natural, normal, or suggest it should be considered even remotely similar to marriage or the proper natural relationship of a man and a woman according to nature (not to mention the Holy Word of God)?

We have, according to the articles, two people born female who desired to be likened unto males. The one (Thomas, aka Laura) that was able to have the sex reassignment was once already in a relationship with a woman. That by definition is homosexuality. The other (Scott, aka Jessica) was born female, did not have sex reassignment, and is now using her female reproductive organs to carry a child, all the while claiming to desire to be male. This too is homosexuality, with even a more perverted twist. Being both females, they could not biology produce a child, so (s)he ‘got pregnant using the sperm of a friend in June 2009, the Daily Mail reports.’

But, yet there is even more confusion to the story. Not only do we have (1) two females wanting to be males; (2) with one female wanting to be male, yet carry a baby as a female; (3) they are ‘legally married’ because Scott (aka Jessica) still uses her female birth certificate to do so.

It is amazing at what lenghts people will go to try to justify their love of sin, and not only with such cases as these, but with many other sins we have and are guilty of committing ourselves. May we be moved by the Holy Spirit unto conviction to repent of sin, and put our faith in Jesus Christ. Pray for your children and those you know, for such stories may surely become the 'norm' should those who despise the Light have their way...

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Click below to read the full Manhattan Declaration.

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

A Call To Evolve Contrary To Scripture?

Sometime ago I happened upon an atheist’s blog entitled ‘Atheist Revolution’, and although I no longer visit to comment, I do often read what the author has to say. Even though I seldom, if ever, agree with what is written, I read the articles more to try and understand the mindset of atheists (or at least one) than to simply argue with them at this point.

Today, I happened upon the author’s post, ‘Church of Sweden Votes to Allow Gay Marriage’, and the part that really caught my eye was the comment ‘I admire the progress the gay community has made in forcing some churches to evolve when it comes to human rights’. The writer acknowledges ‘The Christian bible is undoubtedly anti-gay’, and appears to suggest that churches need to evolve away from such.

My dispute is not really with the author of the article, for I would expect a non Christian to vary in their opinion regarding Scripture and homosexuality. It is rather directed more so to those who profess Christ and proclaim to trust in the Word of God; for, as the author declares, it is impossible to claim that the Scriptures are silent or pro homosexual.

The Bible clearly defines marriage was one man and one woman, and although one can find mankind living various lifestyles, the fact remains ‘from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.’ And likewise, Scripture declares, ‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination’, along with being against nature, unseemly, in error, reprobate, etc.

For any person or church to profess Christ, claiming to trust in such through the Scriptures whereby the gospel is declared, yet holds not to the foundational teachings of marriage and homosexuality, it is not an evolving to a higher plain in spiritual understanding but is rather as one of the commenters said: the church ‘"softening up" a bit.’ Clearly, the embrace of homosexuality, whether of clergy or by marriage, is a declaration of the person’s or church’s degeneration from the truth, and from God. One cannot claim to uphold the oracles of God found in Scripture, yet deny sin as sin.

If one must repent, by confessing and turning away from sin to Christ, to be forgiven and saved by the work of Christ upon Calvary, according as it is written in Scripture, then to embrace homosexuality and the marriage thereof is in clear violation of Scripture and of God, and will send the sinner ignorantly on their way to hell, having only a corrupt blessing from a church, being in sin themselves, which has no merit with the Almighty. Not only does the homosexual need to repent and trust in Christ, but the church who embraces such sin must also.

Chemical Reaction not Evolution, of Fishes and Men

According to Discovery News, ‘Around the world, increasing numbers of male fish are developing female traits -- growing new sexual organs and sometimes even producing eggs.’

As I began to read the article, I must admit I fully expected to see some type of promotion of a proof for evolution. I mean, clearly a fish mutating from its normality would give some type of credence to an eyewitness account of it, would it not? To my dismay, there was no attempt to tie in the discovery with evolution (whether macro or micro), but ‘the phenomenon has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.’

With this, I can’t help but ponder the possible similar affect within humans. For a moment, if we consider the article as written, we see the science/research community noticing a change in the fish genetically producing the mutation of male fish becoming female (whether in part or in addition). They reveal their belief of such actions is due to the fish coming in contact with a chemical which blocks male hormones, in conjunction with a chemical which mimics female hormones. But, with this study, it appears that they also realize the affect such could have on humanity, given the thought, ‘the new research found that there are far more of these chemicals in our lakes and streams than anyone realized.’

It must be noted that these researchers see the chemicals as harmful, to fish, mammals, and humans, along with acknowledging the mutation of male-female hormones within the fish is not normal. So, since this blog is Christian in nature, this brings us once again to the thought of homosexuality, transsexual, and possibly hermaphrodites in light of the Scriptures.

Regarding hermaphrodites, I would admit I don’t recall Scripture mentioning such, but all would have to admit that such mutation during birth is clearly out of the control of the individual. I do not believe there would be any stretch of the imagination to assume they do not choose to be born with both male and female organs, but will have to adjust and determine where they stand as individuals as they mature and live in society. Though their physical body may lend struggles in life, I would venture to say they have both the ability of choosing the heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle.

Now, concerning homosexuality (which would include the hermaphrodite who chooses such) and the transsexual (which I suppose is merely homosexual in nature), we have previously cited Scriptural references regarding God’s displeasure with such. Here, we now see the researchers’ claim that a male fish taking upon itself the character and possibly even the physical appearance of a female fish is not normal, but rather a mutation and corruption of nature by way of chemicals, etc.

With this said, my conclusionary thought is: If researchers see the mutation of male fish taking upon themselves the characteristics and physical properties of female fish as abnormal and something to try and fix, why is it that we are told that homosexuality and transsexuality is normal and something to be embraced? ‘After all, people and fish have similar hormonal systems.’

Keeping Proposition 8 Alive

Last week, a video circulated by the pro-gay marriage group Courage Campaign was circulated heavily on the Internet. The group asked same-sex "couples" who had been married in California to send in their video pleas to allow this immoral practice to continue in the state. It is in response to the legal brief former prosecutor Ken Starr filed on behalf of the "Yes on 8" Campaign. If you would like to see the video here, you can visit the Courage Campaign web site but there is really no need as it is the same propaganda we have been seeing on this issue for years and offers no new insight into why this should suddenly be legal and acceptable.

In the video the happy "couples" and their adopted or artificially-conceived children hold up signs that read "Don't Divorce Us," which is interesting if we think about the fact that these people were never married in the eyes of God and the state of California's political grandstanding is not being well received by the majority. After all, Proposition 8 would not have passed if the majority of the state's voters had felt the way these few liberals feel. They are demanding understanding for something that is not natural or reasonable and is not accepted by most of the rest of the country. California was not the only state where we saw a ban on gay marriage proposed and the bans passed elsewhere too.

And, it is offensive to any reasonable person that a federal judge declared (in early February) that it was lawful for those against proposition 8 to divulge the names of donors to the cause. Because this is such a hot-button issue, it could be dangerous for these names to be made public. The backlash has already started as one donor experienced picketing and boycotts of the store he owns.

This is going too far. These people keep pushing even after the voters have spoken and voted the ban into law. I can't help but wonder what would be the response if Barack Obama had won the popular vote and not been allowed to take office. It is a similar situation and those who realize gay marriage is against the laws of God must continue to stay true to their beliefs and hold their ground on the issue. If there is not a unified voice, there is a very real danger of this ban being overturned and the gay population will be free to flaunt their sexuality and make a mockery of a sacred institution.

By-line:
This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of a Bible college [http://www.christiancolleges.com/]. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

Unfounded Perverted Thoughts of Christ

It is amazing just how far some minds wish to twist and misconstrue the things of Christ to somehow prove a point that makes no sense whatsoever.

Regarding my last post entitled, Should One Really Visit ‘The Shack’, with my mentioning of my dislike of the author’s use of a woman called Papa for God the Father, one of the commenters has apparently went off on a tangent concerning Christ and homosexuality. Thus, I have moved this out of context discussion to its own post.

The commenter begins his tale with, ‘Remember that Jebus was quite feminine: Long hair, soft features, likes to hang around with 12 (Or 13, if you include Judas) disciples, etc, gets chased around by a naked young man, etc. I am quite positive that Jesus is in fact gay. And it wouldn't be surprising for me if God actually is a woman.’

I cannot help but laugh as they have apparently bought into the Hollywood version of a Christ they have never seen nor placed faith in. Even paintings, such as some would call art, are merely the interpretations of a Christ man would have in their imagination. Isaiah declares, 'he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.' There is no reason for one to believe Christ was a man who held the appearance and characteristics of a woman.

The crutch of the commenter’s argument seems to be Mark 14, whereby he writes, ‘Mark 14:51-52 suggests a lewd appearance of a young man chasing after Jesus, which suggests that Jesus is either gay, or have certain attractive qualities which make him attractive to a gay,’ giving us the following points:

This could suggest a few things:
1. Jesus didn't disapprove of gays.
2. Jesus was gay (highly likely)
3. And if he was attractive to gays, he may be a bit of a girly like, since Jesus has always been portrayed as such since antiquity.

Although there is no mention or even a subtle hint of homosexuality anywhere within these verses, not to mention the entire chapter, the commenter reveals there is really no point to his argument but to somehow give credence to homosexuality by the misuse and misunderstanding of Scripture.

1. We know that Jesus did not approve of homosexuality, for we find that He is both God and the Word incarnate (John 1), and both God and the Word declare homosexuality to be both sin and against nature (Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1).

2. There is no evidence in Scripture or without that suggest Christ portrayed any type of homosexual tendencies or lifestyle. First you state, 'a lewd appearance of a young man chasing after Jesus, which suggests that Jesus is either gay.' Scripture declares 'there followed him a certain young man' not that the man was chasing after Jesus. There are countless assumptions we could make regarding the why the young man was dressed in a linen cloth or why the young man followed after Jesus, but the fact remains the act of the young man in no way declares the character or actions of Christ to be homosexual in any way. Again, feminine or homosexual paintings and imaginations of man of Christ and/or his disciples does in no way make such true concerning Christ or his disciples.

3. Second you state, 'or have certain attractive qualities which make him attractive to a gay,' which is even a more illogical argument. The definition of being homosexual is to have a desire for one of the same sex. Just as the lustful desire of a man toward a woman does not make the woman heterosexual, neither would the lust of a man toward a man make the man being lusted after homosexual. If you recall the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, there were two angels which visited the home of Lot. The men of the city lusted sinfully toward these men, and desired even to take them forcefully to do wickedly. It was not the angels, but the homosexuals of the city which did lust and 'burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.'

You cannot blame Christ for the perversion of man, no matter how hard you try.

Woe Unto Them That Call Evil Good

Well, those who oppose Biblical Truth to embrace the transgression thereof are at it again. It simply amazes me at the lengths some persons will go to in trying to justify their depravity. It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their iniquity.

Lisa Miller of Newsweek has apparently written an article entitled, ‘Our Mutual Joy’, stating, ‘Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.’

R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Baptist Press gives a lengthy, but worthy rebuttal entitled, ‘Newsweek turns Bible on its head.’

Mrs. Miller is not the first to attempt such, for there have been others such as Ray Boltz, Peggy Campolo, President Elect Obama, the writers/authors of For the Bible Tells Me So, and even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which have tried to justify the immorality of homosexuality by use of Scripture.

Yet, this misuse of Scripture to try and justify ones sin is not limited to just homosexuality, the same thing has been done regarding abortion also. It can also be found in ones desire to leave their family and turn their backs to their wedding vows even in the marriage of Christians.

Why must we as Christians or non try to corrupt the very Word of God to seemingly justify our degenerate minds and actions? This will in no way make us less guilty before the One True Holy God. Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.

Isaiah declared, ‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’

Romans 1: The Reprobate Mind

Please take a gander over at Right Michigan.

Apparently, there was that spirit of antichrist in their last church service:

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.

They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

---

Extremists Boast: Bash Back Lansing

Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozenqueers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church’scongregation.

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly.Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went intoaction. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-offbalcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal “IT’S OKAYTO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”.

---

In the words of an atheist blogger: 'Know them by their deeds.'

Ray Boltz: ‘tired of living a lie’

I was recently shown an article by the Washington Blade Online, and was somewhat disappointed by the content. I am saddened for a few reasons:

First, there is never any joy (or shouldn’t be) in hearing the stories of Christians who falter from the faith (i.e. Scripture), for whatever reason. All of Christianity is made of men and women, along with boys and girls, who claim to profess Christ as their Lord and Savior, yet are not perfect. By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and working of God, because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are to strive to do that which is right according to Scripture even in the face of opposition, emotion, and/or personal preference that may be contrary to such.

Second, when a person sins in private, the repentance usually remains in private. When a person sins in public, it may require public confession and repentance. When the sin of a Christian of prominence comes to the light, it often (if not always) draws even the attention of those that find no fault with such.

Christianity is usually dealt blows from without, though it is not the fault of Christianity, but of the one whom chooses to act outside of the wisdom of Scripture. Christianity holds to a certain set of convictions (though some men have confounded and twisted the Truth), and when one chooses to step out of the narrow way, it is not Christianity which fails, but the one whom chooses to drift from it. One is forgiven when we come back to Christianity (God and His Word), not by dwelling in sin, refusing to depart such, demanding God accept us while we live rejecting all that He says and is.

Third, it simply amazes me at the ease that many Christians are seemingly able to accuse and blame God for their sins, even when their choices go contrary to the very Word of God. Adam did the same thing in the Garden of Eden. When confronted with his sin of eating of the forbidden tree, Adam contended, ‘The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.’ True, God had given Adam the woman. True, Eve had given Adam the fruit. Though both of these were true, Adam’s guilt lay completely within his choice to disobey God and eat that which was forbidden.

Why do we as Christians desire justification of our sin, by trying to find ways around Scripture, by blaming others, or receiving so-called ‘pardon’ by those also opposing such Scripture (whatever the sin), rather than repentance of our sin where the fellowship with God may not be hindered but increased, and our faith in walking with the Lord strengthened? Why are we worried about our acceptance by man more so than by God? Do we not know that our approval by man does not justify us before God, especially if we are found to be embracing sin over His Word?

It is true that one can live a lie; one can be a hypocrite, claiming to profess Christ as Lord and Savior, while neither loving nor serving Him with their heart, soul, mind, and strength. But, one can also live a lie by claiming God will accept them in their sin; for a Holy God will not, but has called us to repentance that we may be forgiven.

The Church: May Reach Out To The Homosexual, But Cannot Embrace Homosexuality

Ref: Peggy Campolo, 'Gay Christians can't wait any longer '

---

To me, it appears that Peggy Campolo wishes to move the church into acceptance of homosexuality, not simply witnessing to the homosexual. The church cannot and should not embrace homosexuality, especially those that practice such, just like Paul rebuke the Corinthians for the fornication they had in their church. In fact, he tells them ‘to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh’ which sounds pretty tough judgment to me.

She writes, ‘Dr. Gushee is right on the mark when he states that the problems of gay Christians cannot be properly addressed without the church clearly defining the meaning of sex and marriage, and I think he would agree with me that those who reduce marriage to "plumbing and baby-making" are the ones who demean marriage’ but ‘sex and marriage’ is already clearly defined in Scripture and surely in most churches. It appears she is actually calling for a redefining of such, which would be unbiblical and unchristian.

She further states, ‘The current problems of *straight* people, as well as those facing God's gaychildren, cannot be solved until the church of Jesus Christ clearly defines for its people the meaning of celibacy, sex, marriage and what constitutes a family’ and although sin is sin, homosexuality is a sin that Scripture claims God turns ones over to a reprobate mind, and again ‘the meaning of celibacy, sex, marriage and what constitutes a family’ is pretty clear in Scripture already. We need no redefining. Notice the use of [*straight* people] versus [God’s gay children].

She notes, ‘Those children of God, those who do not happen to be straight, are the reason that I, and so many others who love Jesus and believe in the Bible's message of grace, demand justice for them NOW,’ but does she really want ‘justice’? Do any of us want righteous justice for our sin? And ‘who do not happen to be straight’, how about choose not to be straight. Sure we can argue all day whether some are born with homosexual tendencies, but this writing seems to be speaking of practicing homosexuals, which is a choice just like every other sin.

I hate to hear that there are those which are committing suicide because they feel rejected while living in homosexuality, but we are commanded to repent, believe on Christ, and live.

Yes, I have heard the claims that we hate some sins and ‘accept’ others, but this does not mean we ‘accept’ the other sins also, we merely need to repent of ‘accepting’ the some.

Just my thoughts and I am sure some may disagree.

---

Note: This is not saying that I believe we should hate homosexuals or not allow them to visit our churches. I am saying that practicing homosexuality is a sin, and should be viewed and treated as sin within the church just as we should other sins. Sin needs to be repented of, and faith needs to be put in the finished work of Christ that He will continue to help us grow away from sin and closer to righteousness.

Self Proclaimed Homosexual Confronts Publishers Not God

'Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.'

Ah yes, blame a publishing company for feeling as though one is an 'outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."'

Can we actually count all of the books published in any given year, not to mention over a lifetime, that covers topics of homosexuality, yet he chooses merely two Bible publishing companies to sue?

You may check out the article here, but I just don't believe Mr. Fowler has thought this thing through. Sure the versions quoted mention 'homosexuals' but so does most Bible verisons even it if doesn't use the exact word.

Example: Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Also, if he has a problem with the content of a book, shouldn't he contact the author? Take this one up with God Mr. Fowler, it is His truth that states homosexuality is a sin, not the words or printing presses of these publishers.

Is Obama Slandering Christ?

According to BPNews, it appears that Obama is trying to justify homosexuality (“his belief in same-sex civil unions”) by the use of Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

Obama’s thoughts concerning same-sex unions:
"I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that."

Wait a second, what exactly do you mean by “obscure passage in Romans?”

Obscure:
1. (of meaning) not clear or plain; ambiguous, vague, or uncertain
2. not clear to the understanding; hard to perceive

Let’s take a look at the obscure writing of Romans concerning homosexuality shall we?

Romans 1:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So, we have women changing “the natural use” going “against nature,” and even clearer in the text it declares “men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.” Obama, or anyone for that matter, may be able to try their hardest to claim obscurity concerning female homosexuals, but as for the men homosexuals you can’t get much clearer.

Now let’s take a short look at the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:
6 - Homosexuality is a sin not righteousness, so this voids any idea that the teachings of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount are even remotely pro-homosexuality or anti-Scriptural (in contradiction to) concerning such in Romans and elsewhere.

17 – Christ came to fulfill the law not to destroy such, whereby the law declared homosexuality a sin in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.

If Obama is cleaving to Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” he may want to take a little trip to 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

Clearly, the only obscurity lies merely within the heart that refuses to submit itself to the authority of Scripture and feels no guilt when trying to twist the very words of Christ to condone sin.

Read for yourself:
Matthew 5-7
Romans 1

Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry

Looking in the blog world of Atheism, again we have the use of the term bigotry. Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Coming from the title “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” we have a discussion of:

“Try to imagine what would happen if video got out in which one of the Presidential candidates used the dreaded "n-word." That campaign would be over in an instant. Why? Because that type of bigotry would not be tolerated and would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American people as grounds for disqualification. Unfortunately, other types of bigotry are not only accepted but are actually an important strategic component of many Republican campaigns. I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”

First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.

Now, I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without, but even this issue remains different concerning each. For a person to use the “n-word” (as noted by the writer) is a derogatory word used against the entire race or directly to the individual it is said to, whereas stating that Biblically speaking homosexuality is wrong and immoral and atheism makes one a sinner or lost is not the same type of speech.

Why do I say this? Because skin color is not something someone can change or needs to be repented of, whereas homosexuality and atheism is a rejection of the truth, thereby sin, and needs to be repented of to the holy, almighty God.

Now, back to the topic of the writer, they write, “And yet, bigotry directed at the secular and GLBT communities is not only acceptable but appears to be an intentional part (some would even say a central part) in the campaign strategies of many Republicans.”

The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.”

Let’s face it, the atheist cry of bigotry is due to the idea that the presidential candidates wish to claim or promote their theistic beliefs. But, would they not be willing to embrace the candidate which claimed atheism over theism, and desired to rid the country of the “Pledge of Allegiance”, “In God We Trust”, “Moment of Silence”, and any other objectives atheists have presented to the courts of America?

Simple facts:

Theism says there is a God, therefore denies atheism.
Atheism says there is no God, therefore denies theism.

Christianity believes Scripture declares homosexuality a sin, therefore denies it is moral.
Atheism believes Scripture is not authoritative, therefore denies homosexuality is a sin.

Although Christianity and Atheism agree to a certain degree on some moral issues, the morality of Christianity and Atheism varies based on the authority given such, and to the ideas which pertain to each thought.

Again, “Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

I agree one should not be abused, hurt, etc. simply because of race, religion, or sexual choice, but the fact remains that each person is laced within their being with ideas which are “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Trying to say “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate” would be simply removing every candidate from ever running for office.

An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.

Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them, just as the Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them.

I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.

For the Bible Tells Me So Heresy

Again it appears we have the heresy of persons trying to use Scripture to promote as acceptable, that which is clearly stated in Scripture as an unnatural, unseemly, reprobate sin in the sight of the Almighty Lord God of Heaven and Earth.

Interestingly the film title of For the Bible Tells Me So has little to do with honesty on the part of the writers and promoters, for the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. There is no doubt concerning this matter, for even Atheists (which deny there is a God or that Scripture should be used today) freely admit that the Scriptures and God are against homosexuality. To deny the teaching of Scripture against homosexuality is completely dishonest from anyone who would claim such.

The questions presented by the film are thus:
“Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?”

The film’s proclaim is as follows:
“Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).”

The “documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible.” This is such a foolish claim; it goes beyond reason and simple reading comprehension.

Romans 1 states:

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

People, if one wishes to do as they please, do so, but to invoke the name of God or the Scriptures deceitfully to try and bring credibility or authority to your sinful, immoral actions is simply foolish.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[BPNews Link]