Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Homosexuality’

Albert Mohler Calls Gay Conversion Therapy ‘Superficial;’ Says Homosexuality Is Sinful but People Need Redemption, Not Repair

By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has suggested that the Church should not seek to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality.

During a news conference held by the seminary and the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, Mohler said he was opposed to reparative therapy, which involves changing a person’s sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality, dubbing it a “superficial” approach.

“The Christian Church has sinned against the LGBT community by responding to this challenge in a superficial way,” said Mohler. “It’s not something that is so simple as converting from homosexual to heterosexual, and from our Gospel-centered theological understanding that would not be sufficient.”

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

S.C. church’s stance on homosexuality challenged

by David Roach

GREENVILLE, S.C. (BP) — The South Carolina Baptist Convention has asked a Greenville church to either reverse its decision to open marriage ceremonies, church membership and ordination to homosexuals or withdraw from the state convention.

First Baptist Church, whose pastor in 1845 was elected the Southern Baptist Convention’s first president, voted to cease cooperation with the SBC in 1999, according to the church’s website. But South Carolina’s Baptist Courier newsjournal reported First Baptist still cooperates with the state convention but not with the local Greenville Baptist Association. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is listed among the church’s “affiliations” on its website.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Gendered terms rightly defined by James White

January 7, 2014 4 comments

I would like to share an article from James White at Alpha Omega Ministries. This article is profound in that it rightly defines words such as: father, mother, husband, wife, and marriage; words that today are trying to be redefined. But as James White states, these words cannot be redefined because they are gendered terms and will always describe the object, in which they are being used towards, by their very definition. In other words, just as the term bachelor will always carry with it the meaning of an unmarried man, even so the term husband will always carry with it, the notion of a man who is married to a woman.

Here is the article:

 

 

Mr. Church: That is the Sound of the Barbarians at the Gates

Yesterday I was directed to a Tweet picture that spoke volumes. Here it is:

Pictures can say more than a thousand words, to be sure. And this picture speaks volumes. But I would like to respond to Mr. Church’s interpretation, which I would call the “interpretation of inevitability.”

First, the issue of the abuse of language, the constant ploy of those seeking to degrade the moral and ethical foundation of a culture. The term “homophobe” is one of the most absurd, vacuous, mind-numbing terms ever introduced into the English language. It has no meaningful function, since its actual meaning, and its usage, are rarely concurrent. I do not know any homophobes, personally, since that term would refer to someone who has an irrational fear of their own kind. But that is not how Mr. Church is using it. It is a convenient, if untruthful, term used to slander those who believe homosexuality, as an act and as a lifestyle, is immoral and destructive to human flourishing. Hence it is a convenient way of demonizing an entire position without even offering a meaningful moral or ethical argument. The regularity of its use is witness to the bankruptcy of the position espoused by Mr. Church.

Next, when I look at this picture, many issues crowd my mind. Some I will not enter into here (military readiness, the on-going degradation of the strength of the US and the results that will have in destabilizing the political structures around the world). The main issue though is this: if this is supposed to be a “marriage,” who is the husband, and who is the wife? I am not talking about dominant/submissive roles. I am talking about husbands and wives. See, words have meanings. Marriage has meaning. To marry, as a verb, has meaning, and hence, that meaning is filled out by the direct object of the verb. I, a man, married a woman. Hence, I am a husband, with all the meaning that term carries, to a specific woman, who is my wife, with all the meaning that term likewise carries. All the public education and eradication of human nature in the world cannot remove from those who are created in the image of God a basic, instinctive understanding that “husband” is a gendered term, “wife” is a gendered term, “father” is a gendered term, and “mother” is the most gendered term known to humanity. Hence, “marriage” has a meaning that this picture can never represent, since there is no husband, and there is no wife, in it. Without a husband, you have no marriage. Without a wife, you have no marriage. You can have relationships of all kinds, but what you do not have is a marriage. All the glazed eyes of judges or the wild eyes of zealots can not change this basic reality. This is why we instinctively show pity and compassion to the child who has lost a father or a mother: we recognize the need for both. This is why we likewise look down upon the abusive parent of either gender, and we do so properly. Shame is a proper and good thing when it is used to curb the evil of men and women. But all of these considerations are irrelevant to the picture above, for there is no father, there is no mother, no husband, no wife, no marriage. Just two men kissing, one in uniform. Their strong feelings for each other can never surmount the insurmountable: they cannot be married anymore than they can bear children, fly, leap over tall buildings, or live under water. They were made one way, and their rejection of their God-ordained roles does not redefine marriage.

So the sound I hear when I see this picture has nothing to do with abusing the English language through absurd non-terms like “homophobe.” It has nothing to do with advancement in the 21st century. It has everything to do with the sound the citizens of Rome heard in the early 5th century as those they called “barbarians” swept into the EternalCity. Rome had been crumbling from the inside for centuries—much more slowly, I note, than Western Society today, where such processes take place in the span of a few generations rather than centuries (mainly due to our advanced communications technology). Civilizations that fundamentally reject God’s creative purpose collapse, in time. How else could it be? One will either have a culture of life, or a culture of death, and homosexuality, no matter what else is said about it, does not foster life. It is fundamentally self-centered and narcissistic at its core. The profaning of marriage seen in the above graphic has one inevitable result: it cannot produce life. That which does not produce life tends toward death. That is the bent of this society, just as it became the bent of the later centuries of the Roman Empire. And thus we prove yet once again that those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

 

Source [Alpha Omega Ministries]

Response to comment about Chris Broussard article

A while back I placed an article on my blog entitled “Should Chris Broussard be suspended from ESPN”. I had a commenter comment on this post, who claimed to be a Christian, but in the final outcome he did not view civil laws as being derived from God, but makes the claim that man is autonomous to make his own civil laws as he sees fit. I approved the commenter’s first few comments, but when the commenter began to rail and accuse my responses as being Pharisaical, I then cut the commenter off. Here is the final comment from this individual.

 

“You clearly responded without reading my statement… Your statement represented the puny thinking of a closed mind – not even the willingness to read the statement you’re addressing!
1. I celebrated Chris’ statement and agreed with it based on Romans 1, which I noted.
2. I satiated that I adamantly disagree with homosexuals marriage.
3. Civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country you live in, based on that country’s laws.
4. Your Pharisee mentality really speaks to the parable of the toothpick in the versus the telephone pole in your own…
Read what was written before you waste time responding to your own issues.”

 

First my comments to this individual were not driven by the puny thinking of a closed mind for reasons that I will state in my next few points.

Secondly, this individual claimed that he celebrated Chris Broussard’s statement by appealing to Romans 1; yet had he believed Romans 1, then he would not declare that civil laws are derived from men whom have an autonomous mind set.

Thirdly, this commenter claimed that he disagreed with homosexual marriage. If this were true then he would not be a liberal concerning civil government.

Fourthly, this individual claims that civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country in which one lives. It is true that civil rights are given to individuals within the country of which they live, but to make the claim that these countries have the right to make any and all laws that they so choose is to view the world through an autonomous mindset. Men can and have gotten together within the government systems of the countries, of which they live, and have made laws to govern their country. But do these individuals have the right to change the laws of nature, of which God has placed within this universe? This is the question. Men have no more right to change the week to an eight day week, than they do to allow two homosexuals to marry. God established the seven day week pattern from creation and has also established the marital pattern, of one man and one woman being united in holy matrimony, from creation. When these government officials make laws, against the laws of which God has established, then they are acting against God himself and shall be brought into judgment. Remember the nations that forget God shall perish Psalm 9:17.

Fifthly, this individual argues like an atheist. Atheists make the claim that morality is derived from nature. Yet nature is amoral. Since nature is amoral, then morality could not be derived from nature. Other Atheists claim that societies make up their own system of morality and this is where morality comes from. If this were true, then which society has the right system of morality? We see nations governed by Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc… Certainly if morality were derived from society, then we should see a unified system across the globe, which is in place for the good of all individuals. The fact that there is diversity in the governing of countries just shows that there is one moral system, of which men have corrupted and perverted. For instance, no matter where one goes, most people believe that lying, adultery, and theft is wrong. The reason there is a unified concept concerning these things is because morality is something that is not inherent within us, but something that comes from outside us. It is a transcendent law that presses down upon all men. If this were not true, then no one would have the right to call other society’s actions immoral. Matter fact, if this were not true, then no one would have the right to call their neighbor’s actions immoral.

This is the same for civil laws. Government has been established by God as a means to thwart evil. Romans 13 states, that those in government positions are there as ministers of God for the purpose of thwarting evil. But just because certain governments don’t hold to the Bible, as its guide, does not mean that they are not accountable to establish laws that thwart evil. As I mentioned above, the laws of morality transcend us and are pressing down upon us. The laws that are established by government should be established for the betterment of society, not for the destroying of it. Therefore laws that allow two people of the same sex to marry and adopt children, not only destroys the foundation of society, but is an act of defiance to God, who established foundational laws that should govern society.

Finally, this blog views the world through what could be called a Biblical World view. In other words, this blog interprets all things through what God has declared. Anyone who does not see the world through the lens of the Bible has taken an anti-God and anti-Biblical approach to natural things. The Biblical approach to the universe is not the mindset of a Pharisee, but should be the mindset of all of God’s chosen elect. We are never to accept what God says concerning how to run the church, but then reject what he says about how men are to behave themselves within a societal setting. We are to accept what God has stated concerning both areas in question. God alone knows what is best. This is why he gave men commands, of which to obey, within the realm of this world. One man and one woman, united together in holy matrimony, shall keep diseases at bay, and also reproduces in order that society can continue. Without these foundational principles in place, no society will last long. Two men and two women cannot reproduce offspring. Two homosexuals that come together and adopt children cannot raise those children in the same way that a heterosexual couple could. The process going on within our legal arena in this country will have drastic and irreparable consequences. 

Should Chris Broussard be suspended from ESPN

It seems that intolerance has become a normal response from the homosexual and or atheist community concerning the freedom of speech exercised by Christians in calling sin, sin. When a Christian, no matter what field of work they are in, state that certain things are sinful, then those who claim that Christians are intolerant bigots, actually show their true colors.

Atheists and homosexuals do not want the same rights as Christians or married couples, but instead would rather have special rights. They want to be able to silence everyone who disagrees with them, while at the same time speaking whatsoever they desire. In this they show that they are the true intolerant, bigots.

Chris Broussard, an employee of ESPN, can’t come out and freely state what he believes about homosexuality, but an athlete, movie star, musician, etc…. can freely state that they are homosexual without anyone making a big fuss about it, including those within the Christian community. In other words, Christians are not the ones who try to silence and violate the free speech of atheists or homosexuals, but instead the shoe is on the other foot.

Before I introduce this article from CP Entertainment, I want to plainly declare that an atheist is a fool for denying that God exist, even to the extent that he claims to be rational, while not using reason Psalms 53:1. On the other side we have homosexuals claiming to be born with desires for members of the same sex, but Leviticus 18:22 is plain that this type relationship is an abomination before God. So both Atheists and Homosexuals are committing sin against their Creator.

Here is a portion of the article concerning Chris Broussard:

 

Chris Broussard should be suspended from ESPN, according to over 20,000 Americans who signed a petition helmed by a religious organization.

Broussard, the 44-year-old ESPN analyst, recently sparked a debate when he spoke out against the NBA’s first active player to admit that he was a homosexual, Jason Collins. While Collins, 34, spoke about being gay and Christian in Sports Illustrated magazine recently and in follow-up interviews, Broussard appeared on ESPN’s “Outside The Lines” to say the NBA player claiming to be Christian was glorifying a lifestyle that contradicted biblical teachings.

Faithful America, a online religious community that promotes left-wing agendas, does not agree with Broussard’s stance. The community is calling for ESPN to suspend Broussard and created a petition called “Tell ESPN: Don’t Use The Bible to Gay Bash Athletes” which over 22,000 people signed on faithfulamerica.org.

 

For the rest of the article click here.

Police threaten an evangelist for preaching on “Hell”

March 26, 2013 5 comments

A Rock Island, Il. Evangelist was threatened by police officers for preaching on “Hell” and accused him of cussing. Yet, if this Evangelist was using the term in reference to a particular place, (which he was), then there was no profanity in his speech.

Here is a portion of an article describing the events that surrounded the threats by local police:

 

“A Rock Island, IL, street evangelist has filed complaints after local police have twice threatened him with arrest for preaching about “hell” and informing people that they must die and face judgment. The court also required the man to justify his use of the word “hell,” asking why the alleged cuss word was a necessary part of his message.”

 

 

Read the rest of the article here:

 

 

Nevertheless, Dan Savage was allowed into a public school in order to bully, cuss, and ridicule those who hold to the Christian faith and nothing was done by authorities concerning this matter.

Read about Dan Savage’s rant here.

Those who ridicule the Bible and protest of Christian’s intolerance against homosexuality, murder, abortion, etc… ;are really showing that the shoe is on the other foot. I have yet to encounter someone on this blog who professes to be an atheist, homosexual, etc…; who actually shows tolerance for beliefs that differ with theirs.

So those who claim that Christians are bigots are showing their true colors.

Matthew Vines’ Interpretations Refuted

October 1, 2012 2 comments

About a week ago Christianpost.com interviewed a young man, whose name is Matthew Vines. Matthew Vines has become quite popular on Youtube for an hour long video in which he tries to reinterpret six scriptures; claiming that homosexuality is never spoken against in the Bible. This he does not do with any success, seeing that he twists scripture to his and homosexuals destruction.

One can find Matthew Vines interview with Christianpost right here. In this interview Vines appeals to the emotions of his listeners, instead of rightly interpreting scripture. This has become a norm in society and especially within the Church. I have often encountered arguments from those who claim to be theologians or ministers and who are suppose to be speaking from the word of God on a subject, yet who instead speak from their feelings on a particular subject. For instance, just the other week one of my friends went to a Catholic funeral and blogged about his experience. In his blog he tries to make Catholicism orthodox because he felt that he was around Christian bretheren at the funeral. Since these individuals acted so pleasant and nice, (in his eyes), then certainly Protestants have misappropriated certain unorthodox views to Catholics. What my friend should have done, before concluding that someone within Catholicism was orthodox, is ask what they believe about salvation and how one is justified before God. My friend then would have found that Rome has not changed its views on justification and that Rome still teaches that one is justified based upon Christ merit and ours. Grace plus works. This view is still unorthodox and still condemned by Paul the apostle 500 years after the Reformation. Scripture has not changed.

Matthew Vines has been answered by some top theologians within the Christian community. They were interviewed by Christianpost and the interview can be found right here. In their assessments of Matthew Vines’ interpretations of six scriptures, these theologians have concluded that Matthew Vines has twisted scripture because of his bias towards the homosexual lifestyle. This is one of the most common errors of misinterpreting scripture. Since every one of us approach scripture with a bias, we sometimes read that bias into scripture.

To show that I have rightly judged Vines’ approach to the scriptures I will quote from one of the theologians who responded to him:

But for McDonough, Vines’ main appeal is emotional, “with a thin dusting of logic on top.”

Theologians, Ministers, Christian bloggers, and all who represent Christ have a mandate by God too speak the truth in love. We need to stand on the word of God, in this trying time. We have a duty, to Christ and the word of God, to proclaim truth that is based upon God’s views and not ours.

As I close this short post I want to state that Matthew Vines has misinterpreted scripture and is leading people astray. The Bible clearly states that there will come individuals who will privily bring in damnable heresies, bringing swift destruction upon themselves 2 Peter 2:1. Of course today we do not see most false teachings and heresies coming in so privately, but openly and the Church is embracing them rapidly.

James White has also refuted Matthew Vines’ misinterpretations and you can find his audio critiquing homosexual behavior right here. Or right here.