Posts
Many Christian/Religion forums on the internet are gathering places for unbelievers that are there for one reason -- to undermine the Christian faith. I have personally encountered this on just about every one of them -- whether it's universalists out to assail the value of repentance, or atheists that deny Jesus Christ ever existed. In many cases the forum moderators fully support their un-Christian views and join in with their chorus. You'll hear just about everything you didn't sign up for if you stay there long enough. Does this assessment sound familiar to you?
This post is intended as a roll-call. If you have experienced similar issues on other forums, please share them in the comments section.
I begin the warnings with Christian Forums -- the largest on the internet, and totally chocked full of hedonistic permissivity.
Attached is a petition listing some of its sins. A fellow forum member sent this petition to me. I was warned to cease and desist from circulating this petition by the forum administration, or I'd lose my membership. My link to SRF was removed from my signature line at Christian Forums.
Petition: Christian Forums Repent
As God-honoring members of ChristianForums.com, we demand that Webmaster LeeD and his administration immediately remove the following offensive content from ChristianForums.com and change its policy towards allowing sexually explicit material to appear outside the designated recovery forums.
-Teenage 'Fornication'
-Fornication definition
-Getting forgiveness for being a complete self-indulgent moron (masturbation related)
-Weird sexual attractions.
-Christian Hedonism
-Why is incest a sin?
-Already lusted, so it is OK to have SEX?
-Should prostitutes be able to adopt?
-Swingers
-Swapping Partners
-Subforums that entertain debate on homosexuality and abortion
The abortion and homosexual subforums have become gathering places for advocates of said sinful practices and have no place in a Christian environment.
LeeD has steadfastly refused to repent from his sinful practice of allowing sexually perverted threads and posts to appear on this forum, even after other administrators spoke up against this practice. According to Scripture, it is now up to us, the church assembly, to voice our opinion on this matter.
Should LeeD and his administration refuse to listen to reason, we shall obey Scripture and leave CF as if they were heathens and corrupt tax-gatherers. "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:15-20, NKJV)
There are other so-called Christian forums that are apostate as well. Please feel free to add your suggestions, comments, and warnings.
Thank you
SRF
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Is Gay Sex Sin According to the Bible?
First let me mention why this subject is being addressed here at SRF. The authority of the Bible is under attack by liberal social, political, and religious elements that want to justify immorality. They try to falsify the scriptures in order to justify sin, telling us that God's guidelines for Christian life are no longer relevant. This is a direct attack on the Christian faith, and on the hope of eternal life we Christians believe in.
The authority of the scriptures is axiomatic to the Christian hope of a resurrection. This is why Christians object to any attack on the scriptures. So this isn't a matter of "picking on gays", rather the issue here for many Christians is our hope of eternal life, which rests on scriptural authority.
A simple, straight-forward, objective reading of the Bible seems to provide ample evidence to many of us -- the God of the Bible finds gay sex detestable.
Yet there are several sites on the internet that spin us a new gospel in the name of "tolerance" as we're told the scriptures are just the cultural whims of their day. Following this logic through, the Christian hope of eternal life that rests in the scriptures is likewise a cultural whim of its day. Hence Christians are labeled "intolerant" and "bigoted" because they hold to a faith in the Bible and a hope of eternal life that the Bible explains.
This "alternative gospel" is the theology of "gay Christianity" where sin is no longer sin, and "detestable" no longer means detestable. We're told that "the prophets were bigots", "the translations are in error", "culture has changed", etc. etc.. I suppose this methodology could justify any kind of immoral conduct no matter how awful it is.
I have attached a great summary of the pro-gay Christian theological arguments and their rebuttal from Layhands.com. This article is not copyrighted, and I commend the author for a job well done.
SRF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources
Home > Questions and Answers > Is Homosexuality A Sin?
Email this article
Question: "My church has been struggling with the issue of same-sex unions and whether practicing homosexuals should be ordained and so on. My question is, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?"
Answer: It seems that a number of churches and denominations these days are wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. Since this is such an emotionally-charged subject, we need to be especially careful when we study what the Bible says about this. For example, some people use Scripture to justify homosexuality, and other people use Scripture to condemn homosexuality. Obviously the Bible does not support both of these viewpoints (because then Scripture would be contradicting itself), so it is important that we carefully study the Bible with an honest desire to find out God's view concerning homosexuality.
Jesus commanded us to love our "neighbors" (Matthew 22:39), and I love gays just as much as any other "neighbor." So if the Bible says that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be excluded from heaven, then it is proper for us to be just as concerned about their salvation as anyone else's salvation. I have prayerfully studied all of the arguments that I can find both for and against homosexuality, and I have not found the pro-homosexual arguments to be convincing from a Scriptural standpoint. Many of the Christian arguments against homosexuality line up with what I see in the Bible, and therefore that's the only view that I can teach in good conscience. It has nothing to do with "gay bashing" or "homophobia," it is simply a question of "What do I honestly and prayerfully see in the Bible concerning homosexuality?" It would be wonderful to be able to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but I would want to have strong proof of that because the stakes are immensely high. The stakes are nothing less than salvation itself (as we will see), and unfortunately I just don't see any Scriptural proof that homosexual activity is ever acceptable to God.
-----------------------------------------------
Please refer to the article for a complete scriptural analysis, and point-by-point counter-arguments to gay theology. It evaluates the scriptural texts in original Hebrew and Greek. It is the most comprehensive one I've found on the internet and it may be found at this link:
Is Homosexuality a Sin?
The authority of the scriptures is axiomatic to the Christian hope of a resurrection. This is why Christians object to any attack on the scriptures. So this isn't a matter of "picking on gays", rather the issue here for many Christians is our hope of eternal life, which rests on scriptural authority.
A simple, straight-forward, objective reading of the Bible seems to provide ample evidence to many of us -- the God of the Bible finds gay sex detestable.
Yet there are several sites on the internet that spin us a new gospel in the name of "tolerance" as we're told the scriptures are just the cultural whims of their day. Following this logic through, the Christian hope of eternal life that rests in the scriptures is likewise a cultural whim of its day. Hence Christians are labeled "intolerant" and "bigoted" because they hold to a faith in the Bible and a hope of eternal life that the Bible explains.
This "alternative gospel" is the theology of "gay Christianity" where sin is no longer sin, and "detestable" no longer means detestable. We're told that "the prophets were bigots", "the translations are in error", "culture has changed", etc. etc.. I suppose this methodology could justify any kind of immoral conduct no matter how awful it is.
I have attached a great summary of the pro-gay Christian theological arguments and their rebuttal from Layhands.com. This article is not copyrighted, and I commend the author for a job well done.
SRF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Evangelism, Healing, and Teaching Resources
Home > Questions and Answers > Is Homosexuality A Sin?
Email this article
Question: "My church has been struggling with the issue of same-sex unions and whether practicing homosexuals should be ordained and so on. My question is, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?"
Answer: It seems that a number of churches and denominations these days are wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. Since this is such an emotionally-charged subject, we need to be especially careful when we study what the Bible says about this. For example, some people use Scripture to justify homosexuality, and other people use Scripture to condemn homosexuality. Obviously the Bible does not support both of these viewpoints (because then Scripture would be contradicting itself), so it is important that we carefully study the Bible with an honest desire to find out God's view concerning homosexuality.
Jesus commanded us to love our "neighbors" (Matthew 22:39), and I love gays just as much as any other "neighbor." So if the Bible says that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals will be excluded from heaven, then it is proper for us to be just as concerned about their salvation as anyone else's salvation. I have prayerfully studied all of the arguments that I can find both for and against homosexuality, and I have not found the pro-homosexual arguments to be convincing from a Scriptural standpoint. Many of the Christian arguments against homosexuality line up with what I see in the Bible, and therefore that's the only view that I can teach in good conscience. It has nothing to do with "gay bashing" or "homophobia," it is simply a question of "What do I honestly and prayerfully see in the Bible concerning homosexuality?" It would be wonderful to be able to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but I would want to have strong proof of that because the stakes are immensely high. The stakes are nothing less than salvation itself (as we will see), and unfortunately I just don't see any Scriptural proof that homosexual activity is ever acceptable to God.
-----------------------------------------------
Please refer to the article for a complete scriptural analysis, and point-by-point counter-arguments to gay theology. It evaluates the scriptural texts in original Hebrew and Greek. It is the most comprehensive one I've found on the internet and it may be found at this link:
Is Homosexuality a Sin?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Historical Christianity Can Not be Reconciled with Gay Christian Theology
Many Christians feel their beliefs are irreconcilable with “Gay Christianity” (*a). This prepared statement should spare a lot of wasted words for unsuspecting Bible-believing Christians that walk in unaware of the ambush that awaits them on supposedly Christian debate forums. Several Christians reviewed this statement and they agree with it. When I say "we" I mean those who reviewed the statement before the posting, and this includes the views of Protestants and Catholics. I submitted a poll regarding views on same-sex sex within the church. A list of points was stated from Section 1, and voters that claim to be Christian voted on their agreement or disagreement on the points.
(*a) The terms "Gay Christian" and "Gay Christianity" are used in this report to describe same-sex practicing unrepentant gays that call themselves Christians and refuse to acknowledge that gay sex is sin.
Introduction
The church body (*b) is divided over the Gay Christian Movement's attempts to legitimize immorality. The purpose of this statement is to explain what biblical Christians believe regarding "gay Christianity." In short we believe "same-sex practicing gay Christianity" is not compatible with Christian conduct or our faith in the God of the Bible. The theology that supports "gay Christianity" is irreconcilable with the historical Christianity that we received.
(*b) The church body of Christ is the body of believers, some of whom died to bring the Bible that we read today. As a body the church is accountable to the authority of Jesus Christ as its head.
We believe God can forgive any sin including gay-sex, and we believe gays should be accepted in the church body like any other sinners. However, we do not accept their brazen attempt to legitimize immoral conduct that the Bible never commanded us to accept. It is not required for a sinner to repent first before they attend church, and they are welcome to attend, but it is required that they must abstain from injuring the church body by trying to legitimize immorality.
In our opinion the gay Christian Movement is a Trojan horse to launch the gay-political agenda into the church.
Section 1, Points About Gay Theology
We have exhaustively debated "gay Christians" on internet forums regarding historical, biblical Christianity, and we have found them stubbornly unwilling to yield to the Holy Spirit of the Bible and our Savior Jesus Christ whom we experience through our faith in the God of the Bible. All of the following points have been discussed with them to no avail:
[1.1] Whereas, many "gay Christians" that practice same-sex sex consider themselves brothers and sisters in Christ yet they claim repentance is not a necessary product of salvation. In our opinion, Christ's atoning redemptive work on the cross is necessary for saving faith that produces repentance. The message of repentance was delivered through John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the prophets. We believe ANYONE that rejects their repentance message by preaching against it, can not be a brother or sister in Christ but they are considered an enemy of the cross because they corrupt sacred testimony and nullify the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. "Gay Christians" can not be excluded from our assessment.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. "Gay Christians" say the law that Christ died to fulfill is an irrelevant relic. In addition we see no evidence of God's transforming power in the lives of "gay Christians." Rather we see no change at all.
[1.2] Whereas"Gay Christians" oppose the historicity of Christianity which is based on the Bible. We believe "gay Christians" lack the Holy Spirit that is necessary to understand the scriptures to discern right from wrong.We believe the Bible is God's revealed word to mankind. The translations consider gay-sex to be immoral conduct from a simple straight-forward reading of the scriptures. No credible Bible version or Bible translator agrees with their revisionist view that legitimizes immoral sexual conduct, where the "gay Christians" claim that gay-sex is blessed by the God of the Bible, that historical Christianity is based on bigotry, and that none of the Bible translations can be trusted.
The issue of translations is a moot point because it's trumped by Christian love as explained in 1st Corinthians 8. We feel "gay Christians" lack both knowledge and Christian love based on a close examination of their doctrine and their attitude toward ex-gays (ref Section 1.5). Also we believe they can not have spiritually discerning knowledge of the scriptures without the Holy Spirit which we believe they lack.
When someone says the church and the Bible can not present scripture accurately they are really saying Jesus IS FAILING to do His job through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our living witness to the revealed truth in the Word of God. We believe the Holy Spirit is doing its job, and we believe the "gay Christians" are in error.
[1.3] Whereas "Gay Christians" condone loving monogamous gay-relationships as a blessing from God. God, the perfect author of life and of love, gave them the ability to reproduce but not with one another. We do not believe our God is a bungling-inept-creator that couldn't complete His work. Instead we believe gay-sex was never God's intention for humanity. In addition when "gay Christians" condone gay sex as "God's creation" we feel this is an insult to our Creator.
[1.4] Whereas We do not believe God has two standards for Christian conduct, one for ex-gay Christians, and another for "gay Christians."
[1.5] Whereas"Gay Christianity" fails the minimum standard for Christian love. Loving others the way God intended fulfils the OT law, whereas gay sex was a capital offence under the OT law. In addition "gay Christians" do not love or even tolerate ex-gay Christians that are making a tremendous personal sacrifice to serve Jesus Christ. Gay Christians often collaborate with gay-activists that are out to destroy the Christian faith, testimony, and reputation of ALL ex-gay Christians in direct violation of 1st Corinthians 8:1-3.
[1.6] Whereas"Gay Christians" present dietary ordinances and dress codes as justification for abandoning ALL moral codes in the Bible. Under the Mosaic law, dietary and dress violations could be cleansed with an offering, but gay sex required an eternal death penalty. Jews were stoned to death for gay sex. In the day of final judgment we do no believe God will tell those Jewish offenders to depart to hell, and then tell the gentiles "well done" for having gay sex the way he/she was made.
Section 2, Poll Results
Results of the orginal poll
Looking at the poll, the views are evenly divided over same-sex sex as sin.It is notable that the Forum Staff leans heavily toward the liberal view that same sex-sex is not sin, and the staff TOTALLY DISAGREES with ALL the points made in this OP.This is quite telling indeed, as the poll would lean more toward traditional Christianity without their influence as moderators, supervisors and administrators that have the authority to steer their views on Christianity.
Section 3, Notable Quotes in the Discussion
Regarding OP, Gay-advocate said: You clearly don't know much about the old Jewish law.
Gay-advocate said: Gay people are doing no harm to Christianity.
Gay-advocate said: The Bible can be very distracting, especially when you use it like this and act like the Bible IS God.
Baptist said: That's the first time I have ever heard anyone say the Bible is somehow a distraction that sets us up for sin, while they defend the Bible.
Gay-advocate said: bringing up the Old Testament is about the stupidest proof of gay sex being sin as far as i'm concerned
Baptist said: Arguing the viability and credibility of Christianity, while also including criticism of God, is not keeping within the confines of the OP and IMO tends to derail the argument.
Baptist said: When committers of other sexual sins start to refer to their sin as nonsin, that too will be addressed.
OP said: What about those that preach gay sex is righteous from the pulpit?
OP said: On the one hand you say gay sex is sin like any other sin. On the otherhand you say it is ok for a preacher to tell everyone it's not sin.
Baptist said: So when God says something is an abomination, you are going to defend it? That doesn't really make sense.
Baptist said: So when God says something is detestable to Him (does it mean) He doesn't hate it?
OP said: I'm sorry but I can not respect someone that honors the dishonorable. Respect must be earned.
OP said: If the Bible is in error according to you, and you use it for scriptural proof, then it just looks kind of hypocrital.
Gay Universalist said:I think people should throw away the Bibles. It would probably lead to more moral behavior.
Gay Universalist said: If you fear death, you have to deal with it yourself. Your beliefs about salvation are not my concern. They are up to you.
OP to Gay-advocate: If I accept your view, how can I know that I am going to heaven?
Gay-advocate to OP: WAY off topic.
OP said: Jesus didn't have a problem with the Old Testament. Why should we?
Christian said: WHAT ARE YOU A LESBIAN POSTING in a christian forum for?........ you're like a lamb to the slaughter or was this your intention, are you trying to convert people to your way of thinking?
Liberal Theologian: The Bible does not assure me of Heaven, God in Christ does that.
OP Responded: The Bible assures me of heaven, and I'm sorry you haven't received that promise (from the Bible). If I were you, I'd get it in writing.
Conclusion
There are verses in the Bible that talk about a "beam in the eye", "judging", and "casting the first stone." EVERYONE has sinned and will continue sinning until they die. That does not leave Christians powerless to deal with immorality in the church body, and we are COMMANDED to deal with it.
I conclude this blog post with a warning from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Rev 2:5:
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
ADDITIONAL READING (updated 4/17/08)
I want to thank Real Proposal Magazine for their information on Joe Dallas. I was perusing some NARTH documents and discovered that Joe is the founder of Genesis Counseling. For additional study on the Gay Christian Movement be sure to check out Joe's paper titled:
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology
(*a) The terms "Gay Christian" and "Gay Christianity" are used in this report to describe same-sex practicing unrepentant gays that call themselves Christians and refuse to acknowledge that gay sex is sin.
Introduction
The church body (*b) is divided over the Gay Christian Movement's attempts to legitimize immorality. The purpose of this statement is to explain what biblical Christians believe regarding "gay Christianity." In short we believe "same-sex practicing gay Christianity" is not compatible with Christian conduct or our faith in the God of the Bible. The theology that supports "gay Christianity" is irreconcilable with the historical Christianity that we received.
(*b) The church body of Christ is the body of believers, some of whom died to bring the Bible that we read today. As a body the church is accountable to the authority of Jesus Christ as its head.
We believe God can forgive any sin including gay-sex, and we believe gays should be accepted in the church body like any other sinners. However, we do not accept their brazen attempt to legitimize immoral conduct that the Bible never commanded us to accept. It is not required for a sinner to repent first before they attend church, and they are welcome to attend, but it is required that they must abstain from injuring the church body by trying to legitimize immorality.
In our opinion the gay Christian Movement is a Trojan horse to launch the gay-political agenda into the church.
Section 1, Points About Gay Theology
We have exhaustively debated "gay Christians" on internet forums regarding historical, biblical Christianity, and we have found them stubbornly unwilling to yield to the Holy Spirit of the Bible and our Savior Jesus Christ whom we experience through our faith in the God of the Bible. All of the following points have been discussed with them to no avail:
[1.1] Whereas, many "gay Christians" that practice same-sex sex consider themselves brothers and sisters in Christ yet they claim repentance is not a necessary product of salvation. In our opinion, Christ's atoning redemptive work on the cross is necessary for saving faith that produces repentance. The message of repentance was delivered through John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and the prophets. We believe ANYONE that rejects their repentance message by preaching against it, can not be a brother or sister in Christ but they are considered an enemy of the cross because they corrupt sacred testimony and nullify the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. "Gay Christians" can not be excluded from our assessment.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. "Gay Christians" say the law that Christ died to fulfill is an irrelevant relic. In addition we see no evidence of God's transforming power in the lives of "gay Christians." Rather we see no change at all.
[1.2] Whereas"Gay Christians" oppose the historicity of Christianity which is based on the Bible. We believe "gay Christians" lack the Holy Spirit that is necessary to understand the scriptures to discern right from wrong.We believe the Bible is God's revealed word to mankind. The translations consider gay-sex to be immoral conduct from a simple straight-forward reading of the scriptures. No credible Bible version or Bible translator agrees with their revisionist view that legitimizes immoral sexual conduct, where the "gay Christians" claim that gay-sex is blessed by the God of the Bible, that historical Christianity is based on bigotry, and that none of the Bible translations can be trusted.
The issue of translations is a moot point because it's trumped by Christian love as explained in 1st Corinthians 8. We feel "gay Christians" lack both knowledge and Christian love based on a close examination of their doctrine and their attitude toward ex-gays (ref Section 1.5). Also we believe they can not have spiritually discerning knowledge of the scriptures without the Holy Spirit which we believe they lack.
When someone says the church and the Bible can not present scripture accurately they are really saying Jesus IS FAILING to do His job through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our living witness to the revealed truth in the Word of God. We believe the Holy Spirit is doing its job, and we believe the "gay Christians" are in error.
[1.3] Whereas "Gay Christians" condone loving monogamous gay-relationships as a blessing from God. God, the perfect author of life and of love, gave them the ability to reproduce but not with one another. We do not believe our God is a bungling-inept-creator that couldn't complete His work. Instead we believe gay-sex was never God's intention for humanity. In addition when "gay Christians" condone gay sex as "God's creation" we feel this is an insult to our Creator.
[1.4] Whereas We do not believe God has two standards for Christian conduct, one for ex-gay Christians, and another for "gay Christians."
[1.5] Whereas"Gay Christianity" fails the minimum standard for Christian love. Loving others the way God intended fulfils the OT law, whereas gay sex was a capital offence under the OT law. In addition "gay Christians" do not love or even tolerate ex-gay Christians that are making a tremendous personal sacrifice to serve Jesus Christ. Gay Christians often collaborate with gay-activists that are out to destroy the Christian faith, testimony, and reputation of ALL ex-gay Christians in direct violation of 1st Corinthians 8:1-3.
[1.6] Whereas"Gay Christians" present dietary ordinances and dress codes as justification for abandoning ALL moral codes in the Bible. Under the Mosaic law, dietary and dress violations could be cleansed with an offering, but gay sex required an eternal death penalty. Jews were stoned to death for gay sex. In the day of final judgment we do no believe God will tell those Jewish offenders to depart to hell, and then tell the gentiles "well done" for having gay sex the way he/she was made.
Section 2, Poll Results
Results of the orginal poll
Looking at the poll, the views are evenly divided over same-sex sex as sin.It is notable that the Forum Staff leans heavily toward the liberal view that same sex-sex is not sin, and the staff TOTALLY DISAGREES with ALL the points made in this OP.This is quite telling indeed, as the poll would lean more toward traditional Christianity without their influence as moderators, supervisors and administrators that have the authority to steer their views on Christianity.
Section 3, Notable Quotes in the Discussion
Regarding OP, Gay-advocate said: You clearly don't know much about the old Jewish law.
Gay-advocate said: Gay people are doing no harm to Christianity.
Gay-advocate said: The Bible can be very distracting, especially when you use it like this and act like the Bible IS God.
Baptist said: That's the first time I have ever heard anyone say the Bible is somehow a distraction that sets us up for sin, while they defend the Bible.
Gay-advocate said: bringing up the Old Testament is about the stupidest proof of gay sex being sin as far as i'm concerned
Baptist said: Arguing the viability and credibility of Christianity, while also including criticism of God, is not keeping within the confines of the OP and IMO tends to derail the argument.
Baptist said: When committers of other sexual sins start to refer to their sin as nonsin, that too will be addressed.
OP said: What about those that preach gay sex is righteous from the pulpit?
OP said: On the one hand you say gay sex is sin like any other sin. On the otherhand you say it is ok for a preacher to tell everyone it's not sin.
Baptist said: So when God says something is an abomination, you are going to defend it? That doesn't really make sense.
Baptist said: So when God says something is detestable to Him (does it mean) He doesn't hate it?
OP said: I'm sorry but I can not respect someone that honors the dishonorable. Respect must be earned.
OP said: If the Bible is in error according to you, and you use it for scriptural proof, then it just looks kind of hypocrital.
Gay Universalist said:I think people should throw away the Bibles. It would probably lead to more moral behavior.
Gay Universalist said: If you fear death, you have to deal with it yourself. Your beliefs about salvation are not my concern. They are up to you.
OP to Gay-advocate: If I accept your view, how can I know that I am going to heaven?
Gay-advocate to OP: WAY off topic.
OP said: Jesus didn't have a problem with the Old Testament. Why should we?
Christian said: WHAT ARE YOU A LESBIAN POSTING in a christian forum for?........ you're like a lamb to the slaughter or was this your intention, are you trying to convert people to your way of thinking?
Liberal Theologian: The Bible does not assure me of Heaven, God in Christ does that.
OP Responded: The Bible assures me of heaven, and I'm sorry you haven't received that promise (from the Bible). If I were you, I'd get it in writing.
Conclusion
There are verses in the Bible that talk about a "beam in the eye", "judging", and "casting the first stone." EVERYONE has sinned and will continue sinning until they die. That does not leave Christians powerless to deal with immorality in the church body, and we are COMMANDED to deal with it.
I conclude this blog post with a warning from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Rev 2:5:
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
ADDITIONAL READING (updated 4/17/08)
I want to thank Real Proposal Magazine for their information on Joe Dallas. I was perusing some NARTH documents and discovered that Joe is the founder of Genesis Counseling. For additional study on the Gay Christian Movement be sure to check out Joe's paper titled:
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology
.
.
.
COMMENTS
The Real Proposal™ magazine said...
Firstly, we wanted to let you know that we have posted a link to your blog entry to the current "Marriage In the News" page for The Real Proposal magazine.
http://www.therealproposal.com/815503.html
We think it has relevance to an article we posted regarding Barack Obama's pastor's view on gay rights. At the end of March, that web page will be archived as "March 2008."
http://www.therealproposal.com/March_2008.html
Also, we wanted to bring your attention to a couple of links on our page that we believe you may be interested in:RELATED ARTICLE: "Responding to Pro-Gay Theology" By Joe Dallas, Leadership U.
This three-part series addresses the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments--or tenets--into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. Joe Dallas, Founder of Genesis Counseling, is the author of three books on homosexuality: Desires in Conflict, Unforgiven Sins, and A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. A former gay rights activist and staff member of a Metropolitan Community Church, he has worked with hundreds of men and women struggling with homosexuality and related problems.
RELATED BROADCAST: "How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
Part 1" Speaker: Joe Dallas, Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008The Bible tells how the prophet Jonah had great disdain for the people of Nineveh - he resisted God's command to preach a message of judgment to the Ninevites, and he became angry when God compassionately held back His wrath after the people of Nineveh repented. Author and counselor Joe Dallas says many Christians are afflicted with the "Jonah Syndrome," meaning they hold homosexuals in contempt and resist demonstrating to them the love of Christ.
Dallas - a former homosexual - calls on the church to repent of its sin and to reach out to the gay community with a message of grace that is compassionate, consistent and clear."I believe as we address the issue of homosexuality that God would call us to repent of whatever hostility exists within the church .. and recommit ourselves to bold love." -
Joe Dallas RELATED BROADCAST: "How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
Part 2" Speaker: Joe Dallas,Focus on the Family.org, March 18, 2008
Most Christians have heard the phrase, "hate the sin but love the sinner." Unfortunately, many homosexuals feel like evangelicals hate them as people because of their behavior. How has the church gone wrong in responding to the gay community? Author and counselor Joe Dallas cites examples as he admonishes believers to repent of their hostility towards homosexuals.
Dallas also describes how Christians can achieve a proper, balanced approach of showing Christ's love to gays and lesbians while still declaring the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin."The gay and lesbian community is looking to the church for some verifiable evidence that we love them as we say that we do ... [that we] value them as people, not just as objects to be converted." - Joe Dallas
March 20, 2008 8:00 PM
--- SRF Response ---
Real Proposal Magazine,
Thank you very much for your inputs. Your points are well taken that Christians so often want to throw out the sinner along with the sin. My personal dog in this fight has to do with the credibility of the scriptures. I understand that gays and former gays have an exceptionally difficult nature to deal with, and their sacrifice is greater than most of us have to bear. I'm looking to see how God has provided for them, as He promised He could.
Thank you for your timely information.
-SRF
Thursday, December 27, 2007
About God Hating Shrimp
You've probably heard it before. It's one of the pettiest arguments on the internet and it says God Hates Shrimp. The gay rights advocates dumb down the Bible again, like Eve in the Garden of Eden. As you may recall, she said "God said" touching the forbidden fruit would kill you. She was hoping the fruit would bring her wisdom she obviously lacked.
So what about the seafood buffet a-la-lipitor?
According to the Old Testament of the Bible, these are the offenses which may have merited the death penalty for those living under the Jewish covenant and the Mosaic law.
Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:15)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Disobedience to parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
Juvenile delinquency - incorrigibility (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15)
Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13)
Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20)
Fornication by daughters of priests (Leviticus 21:9)
Failure to abide by a decision of the High Court (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
Cursing someone (Leviticus 24:14)
Negligence resulting in death (Exodus 21:29)
I'm sorry, but shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, and mussels are NOT on this menu.
Neither did mixed fabrics make the list of capital offenses.
Looking over the list again -- these things look pretty bad, and same-sex sex is on the list.
God hasn't changed His mind about these things either.
In Leviticus the God of the Bible said certain meats weren't fit to eat. His people could still eat food though.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
And doctors warn their high-cholesterol patients to avoid shrimp, lobster, pork, and shellfish. That doesn't make doctors the bad guys does it? But then, gays won't listen to health professionals about AIDS either.
I kind of hate ignorance, myself.
Comments
Q: "One question, just for the record, the last time your child disobeyed you in any way, did you in fact kill them in accordance with Scripture?"
A: No, I did not fulfill your idea of the Mosaic law by violating two more commandments of the same law -- the commandment of due process (Deut 17:12) which gives the court the authority I don't have to execute someone, and the commandment against murder (Ex 21:12). Taking matters of the law into my own hands also violates the New Testament commandment that Jesus gave us -- which is to love and to forgive. A loving parent would not kill their own child. Jesus said that loving other people the way God intended it, fulfils ALL of God's laws, hence by default, homosexuality is not an appropriate form of Christian love, just like the other capital offenses on the list.
Jesus DID NOT command us to love sin, however, and I see no good thing in the list of capital offenses presented here. Do you?
Q: JB said...
"(The Jewish attitude towards Torah laws is that if G-d had wanted to be more specific, she would have been; therefore, where G-d doesn't say how something is to be done, the sages got to decide.)"
A: The Jewish attitude toward God has never been in the feminine gender. Consider that God created man first in "His" own image as stated in Genesis, then from man God created woman as a complement to man, to be equal in all respects. Consider that Jesus was born a male child. Also consider that Jesus will marry His bride "The Church" as mentioned in the book of Revelation. Jesus will not be marrying another Jesus.
Q:Dieppe said...
The irony of it all is that the Laws in Leviticus (well the Torah and Talmud) are Jewish Civil Law. As such, beyond the "10 Commandments", these "Laws" really don't apply to Gentiles. Even Gentiles of a Christian faith.
A: This really boils down (no pun intended) to two issues: 1) What is moral conduct? 2) What is the eternal penalty for doing wrong? Shrimp and mixed fabrics (dietary and dress code violations) received little if any penalty whatsoever, yet murder(a moral code violation) received the death sentence -- an eternal consequence. Even under the Mosaic laws it would be reasonable for a starving person to eat unclean food or a naked person to wear mixed fabrics if there was nothing else to wear. However, I see no reasonable excuse for any of the capital offenses presented on the list. I personally see no good thing on the list. You tell me which ones God changed His mind about.
For example: Did God think Jews deserved an eternal punishment for murder, whereas it was acceptable conduct for gentiles? Ask the same question for all the other items on the list: Was infant sacrifice wrong for jews but ok for gentiles (Lev 20:2)? How about bestiality? Kidnapping? Gay sex? Adultery? Negligence resulting in wrongful death?
Q: I believe that "God Hates Shrimp" is trying to show the ridiculousness of applying ancient law to modern life. Do it if it makes you happy, but stop trying to apply it to everyone else who don't believe the way you do.
A: I've pointed out what the "Bible says" about this issue, and it does not agree with your disrespectful view of the Bible. This blog is here to present the scriptures truthfully and in love. It appears that the "God Hates Shrimp" web site pulled a few verses out of context at the expense of the rest of the Bible, and twisted those verses unsuccessfully to justify their views about gay marriage. This seems to be a rather common ploy by gay-advocates, and apparently it is the only way they can argue against the scriptures -- making Eve's mistake -- allowing a serpent to dumb up God's word for her and then re-inventing the scriptures to justify herself.
Q: Ryland said...
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If something doesn't merit a death penalty, it's OK? It says in Leviticus that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, and in Deuteronomy it says it's unclean. Is that not a prohibition against eating shrimp? Or are they just, you know, letting you know? "You can go ahead and eat shrimp, but FYI, it's an abomination"?
A: We know shrimp, lobster, and shellfish contain cholesterol which can be a root cause for heart attack and stroke -- so, no it's not necessarily "OK." These probably aren't the healthiest foods, and God wanted only the best for His people. According to the Bible, the foods restricted by Jewish dietary code are now cleansed for human consumption (ref Acts 10: 10-16). On the other hand, gay sex continues to be unclean moral conduct as reiterated in the New Testament of the Bible.
Q: songofsongs said...
This is what Paul meant about 'the wages of sin is death'. The Lord revealed to me some months ago, that there were two types of penaties to the Mosaic Laws: death penalty which required death by stoning and the sin offering such as the grain, meat, oil and wine offering which is self explanatory. Your articule "About God Hating Shrimp" is spot on.
A: Thanks song of songs. Here's a point I made on another forum, along the lines of your thought process:
"In the day of God's final judgment explained in the Bible, can you imagine what it is going to be like for a righteous, fair, and just God in that day? This is a God that is no respector of persons and treats all men equally in judgment.
To the OT Jew that was stoned to death for having gay sex, God tells him to depart to an eternal burning hell, and gives him all the penalties for breaking His commandments. To the New Testament gentile God says well-done thy good and faithful servant for living the gay lifestyle the way I created you.
Does this sound like a righteous, fair, impartial, and just God to you?"
Q: The boy with the green tambourine said...
No. Nor does the God who ordered the massacre of the Amalekites. Or the one who killed the Egyptian firstborn. Or the one who slaughtered forty children. Or the one who required Jeptha to perform human sacrifice, and Abraham and Isaac to go through a disgusting masquerade.In fact, your God's a pretty nasty person, all told.
A: Well I'm sorry you feel that way about the God of the Bible. All He's ever done for me is give me blessings that I never deserved.
Q: Dieppe said...
This is the point of "God Hates Shrimp". You pick and choose the Bible verses that you are okay with, ("God Hates Man on Man Sex") but discard that you don't agree with (Unclean meat, PROPER Sabbath observance) because it fits your needs! And yet you are too blind to see it! Has Satan blinded you, or is this just pick and choose of your own doing?
A: Thank you very much for your response. This is a typical example of how people promote sin in the church body -- how it is spun, rationalized, and justified until nothing is sin anymore. And now we have a whole group of gay people counting on a petty dietary law to justify themselves before God. It's sad, really and it's a shrimp-sized excuse. It's like me pleading that a traffic code revision somehow justifes murder now.
In your list of counterpoints you mentioned the observance of a proper Sabbath. Personally I would be quite willing to observe Saturday as the Sabbath if the rest of the church body would like to change their day of worship. Historically the church adopted Sunday as the new Sabbath in celebration and remembrance of our Lord’s resurrection. This change occurred in biblical times, and I respect this decision made by our church founders. Whatever the case might be here, I really do think people should observe their Creator on a Sabbath. I also believe our Lord is most interested in the right heart when believers come to worship Him -- that was really His ultimate request in the Bible regarding worship.
In addition, grace trumps the law for believers that received God's grace through repentance as revealed in the New Testament of the Bible. Unbelievers have not received God's gift of grace through repentance and they are still under every part of the Old Testament law as Paul explained. That is why Jesus came, to fulfill the law, and die for our sins, so we could be forgiven for our transgressions of the law through personal faith that brings repentance.
With all that said, tell us why God supposedly loves gay-sex now, but Jews were stoned to death for gay-sex under God’s commandments to Moses. In addition, explain what God should do with those He sent to an eternal hell for their violations of the law -- now that God has supposedly changed His mind about gay-sex and God really made people that way all along (according to the Gay Christian Movement).
So what about the seafood buffet a-la-lipitor?
According to the Old Testament of the Bible, these are the offenses which may have merited the death penalty for those living under the Jewish covenant and the Mosaic law.
Murder (Exodus 21:12, Exodus 21:15)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Disobedience to parents (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18)
Juvenile delinquency - incorrigibility (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Bestiality (Leviticus 20:15)
Violations of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Abominations (Leviticus 20:2)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11)
Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:5)
Worshipping a false god (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)
Sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13)
Sex with a woman betrothed to another (Deuteronomy 22:25)
False witness in a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:16-20)
Fornication by daughters of priests (Leviticus 21:9)
Failure to abide by a decision of the High Court (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Unchastity (Deuteronomy 22:21-24)
Cursing someone (Leviticus 24:14)
Negligence resulting in death (Exodus 21:29)
I'm sorry, but shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, and mussels are NOT on this menu.
Neither did mixed fabrics make the list of capital offenses.
Looking over the list again -- these things look pretty bad, and same-sex sex is on the list.
God hasn't changed His mind about these things either.
In Leviticus the God of the Bible said certain meats weren't fit to eat. His people could still eat food though.
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
And doctors warn their high-cholesterol patients to avoid shrimp, lobster, pork, and shellfish. That doesn't make doctors the bad guys does it? But then, gays won't listen to health professionals about AIDS either.
I kind of hate ignorance, myself.
Comments
Q: "One question, just for the record, the last time your child disobeyed you in any way, did you in fact kill them in accordance with Scripture?"
A: No, I did not fulfill your idea of the Mosaic law by violating two more commandments of the same law -- the commandment of due process (Deut 17:12) which gives the court the authority I don't have to execute someone, and the commandment against murder (Ex 21:12). Taking matters of the law into my own hands also violates the New Testament commandment that Jesus gave us -- which is to love and to forgive. A loving parent would not kill their own child. Jesus said that loving other people the way God intended it, fulfils ALL of God's laws, hence by default, homosexuality is not an appropriate form of Christian love, just like the other capital offenses on the list.
Jesus DID NOT command us to love sin, however, and I see no good thing in the list of capital offenses presented here. Do you?
Q: JB said...
"(The Jewish attitude towards Torah laws is that if G-d had wanted to be more specific, she would have been; therefore, where G-d doesn't say how something is to be done, the sages got to decide.)"
A: The Jewish attitude toward God has never been in the feminine gender. Consider that God created man first in "His" own image as stated in Genesis, then from man God created woman as a complement to man, to be equal in all respects. Consider that Jesus was born a male child. Also consider that Jesus will marry His bride "The Church" as mentioned in the book of Revelation. Jesus will not be marrying another Jesus.
Q:Dieppe said...
The irony of it all is that the Laws in Leviticus (well the Torah and Talmud) are Jewish Civil Law. As such, beyond the "10 Commandments", these "Laws" really don't apply to Gentiles. Even Gentiles of a Christian faith.
A: This really boils down (no pun intended) to two issues: 1) What is moral conduct? 2) What is the eternal penalty for doing wrong? Shrimp and mixed fabrics (dietary and dress code violations) received little if any penalty whatsoever, yet murder(a moral code violation) received the death sentence -- an eternal consequence. Even under the Mosaic laws it would be reasonable for a starving person to eat unclean food or a naked person to wear mixed fabrics if there was nothing else to wear. However, I see no reasonable excuse for any of the capital offenses presented on the list. I personally see no good thing on the list. You tell me which ones God changed His mind about.
For example: Did God think Jews deserved an eternal punishment for murder, whereas it was acceptable conduct for gentiles? Ask the same question for all the other items on the list: Was infant sacrifice wrong for jews but ok for gentiles (Lev 20:2)? How about bestiality? Kidnapping? Gay sex? Adultery? Negligence resulting in wrongful death?
Q: I believe that "God Hates Shrimp" is trying to show the ridiculousness of applying ancient law to modern life. Do it if it makes you happy, but stop trying to apply it to everyone else who don't believe the way you do.
A: I've pointed out what the "Bible says" about this issue, and it does not agree with your disrespectful view of the Bible. This blog is here to present the scriptures truthfully and in love. It appears that the "God Hates Shrimp" web site pulled a few verses out of context at the expense of the rest of the Bible, and twisted those verses unsuccessfully to justify their views about gay marriage. This seems to be a rather common ploy by gay-advocates, and apparently it is the only way they can argue against the scriptures -- making Eve's mistake -- allowing a serpent to dumb up God's word for her and then re-inventing the scriptures to justify herself.
Q: Ryland said...
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If something doesn't merit a death penalty, it's OK? It says in Leviticus that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, and in Deuteronomy it says it's unclean. Is that not a prohibition against eating shrimp? Or are they just, you know, letting you know? "You can go ahead and eat shrimp, but FYI, it's an abomination"?
A: We know shrimp, lobster, and shellfish contain cholesterol which can be a root cause for heart attack and stroke -- so, no it's not necessarily "OK." These probably aren't the healthiest foods, and God wanted only the best for His people. According to the Bible, the foods restricted by Jewish dietary code are now cleansed for human consumption (ref Acts 10: 10-16). On the other hand, gay sex continues to be unclean moral conduct as reiterated in the New Testament of the Bible.
Q: songofsongs said...
This is what Paul meant about 'the wages of sin is death'. The Lord revealed to me some months ago, that there were two types of penaties to the Mosaic Laws: death penalty which required death by stoning and the sin offering such as the grain, meat, oil and wine offering which is self explanatory. Your articule "About God Hating Shrimp" is spot on.
A: Thanks song of songs. Here's a point I made on another forum, along the lines of your thought process:
"In the day of God's final judgment explained in the Bible, can you imagine what it is going to be like for a righteous, fair, and just God in that day? This is a God that is no respector of persons and treats all men equally in judgment.
To the OT Jew that was stoned to death for having gay sex, God tells him to depart to an eternal burning hell, and gives him all the penalties for breaking His commandments. To the New Testament gentile God says well-done thy good and faithful servant for living the gay lifestyle the way I created you.
Does this sound like a righteous, fair, impartial, and just God to you?"
Q: The boy with the green tambourine said...
No. Nor does the God who ordered the massacre of the Amalekites. Or the one who killed the Egyptian firstborn. Or the one who slaughtered forty children. Or the one who required Jeptha to perform human sacrifice, and Abraham and Isaac to go through a disgusting masquerade.In fact, your God's a pretty nasty person, all told.
A: Well I'm sorry you feel that way about the God of the Bible. All He's ever done for me is give me blessings that I never deserved.
Q: Dieppe said...
This is the point of "God Hates Shrimp". You pick and choose the Bible verses that you are okay with, ("God Hates Man on Man Sex") but discard that you don't agree with (Unclean meat, PROPER Sabbath observance) because it fits your needs! And yet you are too blind to see it! Has Satan blinded you, or is this just pick and choose of your own doing?
A: Thank you very much for your response. This is a typical example of how people promote sin in the church body -- how it is spun, rationalized, and justified until nothing is sin anymore. And now we have a whole group of gay people counting on a petty dietary law to justify themselves before God. It's sad, really and it's a shrimp-sized excuse. It's like me pleading that a traffic code revision somehow justifes murder now.
In your list of counterpoints you mentioned the observance of a proper Sabbath. Personally I would be quite willing to observe Saturday as the Sabbath if the rest of the church body would like to change their day of worship. Historically the church adopted Sunday as the new Sabbath in celebration and remembrance of our Lord’s resurrection. This change occurred in biblical times, and I respect this decision made by our church founders. Whatever the case might be here, I really do think people should observe their Creator on a Sabbath. I also believe our Lord is most interested in the right heart when believers come to worship Him -- that was really His ultimate request in the Bible regarding worship.
In addition, grace trumps the law for believers that received God's grace through repentance as revealed in the New Testament of the Bible. Unbelievers have not received God's gift of grace through repentance and they are still under every part of the Old Testament law as Paul explained. That is why Jesus came, to fulfill the law, and die for our sins, so we could be forgiven for our transgressions of the law through personal faith that brings repentance.
With all that said, tell us why God supposedly loves gay-sex now, but Jews were stoned to death for gay-sex under God’s commandments to Moses. In addition, explain what God should do with those He sent to an eternal hell for their violations of the law -- now that God has supposedly changed His mind about gay-sex and God really made people that way all along (according to the Gay Christian Movement).
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The Sin of "Gay Christian" Doctrine
On a Christian forum I was confronted by a gay so-called Christian that promotes "loving monogamous gay relationships." He said nobody needs to repent because Christ died for everyone's sins. He argued in favor of same-sex sex in the lives of so-called "gay Christians." He said it does no harm to other Christians, in particular the ex-gay ones. I present his questions and my answers:
Q: What proof do you have that same sex sex was "harming them" (ex-gay Christians)?
A:
[1.0] The damage is spiritual according to some of our (ex-gay) brothers and sisters in Christ by their own personal testimonies. Their personal (ex-gay) testimonies belong to them and not to you. You can not speak for them.
[1.1] It's not about what you believe, or even who you are, it's about what struggling Christian brothers and sisters believe as they try to live for Christ.
[1.2] You believe you are living for Christ, and so do other gays. I'm not debating that, but if I must choose (and I feel that I must), then I choose the group that makes the greatest personal sacrifice for Christ. That group is obviously the ex-gay group, and they are my Christian brothers and sisters that are being hurt by gay rights advocates.
[1.3] Case at point: Ex-gay Watch and Truth Wins Out. Apparently many gays that call themselves Christians are siding with these monstrous groups of hate-mongers headed by men like Wayne Besen (the head of Truth Wins Out). God have mercy on anyone that calls himself/herself a Christian and joins this persecution against believers. (Rev 1)
[2.0] I bring a Christian brother's testimony as a witness:
"I am a Christian man who has struggled with same sex attraction. I am not a practicing homosexual because I know that homosexuality is wrong, know that it is a sin, and know that the Bible is very clear in teaching that it is immoral. I do not try to spin it, rationalize it, or conveniently reinterpret the Scripture. Marital Status: Married."
[2.1] It is sin for a fellow-believer to go against the weakness in another-believer's life, as they have done on the forum on many occasions.
[2.2] On more than one occasion this ex-gay brother said his conscience was offended by his so-called "gay Christian" brothers on the forum. They said God made him gay and it was disobedience for him to refrain from the way God created him. He was supposed to participate in God's ordained gift of gay-sex according to these "gay Christians."
[2.3] Regardless of what you or anyone else believes about sin, it is wrong conduct to offend his weakness.
[3.0] I bring Ist Corinthians 8:12 to witness:
And when you sin against other believers[a] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.
Q: No proof that gays and lesbians aren't your brothers and sisters in Christ.
A:
[3.1] It is incumbent on ANY believer to prove THEY ARE a believer in Jesus Christ. That is their job, not mine. So your objection is irrelevant to the point being made about gay-affirming doctrine, which is sin by definition in I Cor 8. Your objection is a non sequitor.
[3.2] Besides, I think your claim is irrelevant to Christianity anyway: Is someone my brother or sister in Christ simply because they are gay? Faith in Christ is the basis for Christianity.
[3.3] My point is that the gay-affirming doctrine is an open invitation for struggling Christians to go against their own conscience. The gay-affirming proponents claim to be Christians and this is a violation of conscience for the struggling group of ex-gay believers.
Q: "The kind of God you believe in" must be an arbitrary one, if one must obey an arbitrary rule.
A:
[4.0] I believe in a Holy God that brings life to ALL believers. The spirit of same-sex sex kills the spiritual life of ex-gay Christians according to them. The same spirit blesses the spiritual lives of so-called "gay Christians" according to Katherine Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA that ordinated the openly-gay noncelibate bishop Gene Robinson. This can not come from the spirit of Christ, otherwise Christ Himself is a contradiction -- slaying the spirit of one believer and blessing the spirit of another. Therefore, the spirit of same-sex sex can not come from a Holy God.
[4.1] I call the entire ex-gay movement to the witness stand. Regardless of what you believe about them, they are making a tremendous sacrifice to please God, and frankly I think they are trying a lot harder than you are.
[4.2] By their own testimonies they can not be in a same-sex sex relationship and serve God too. That fact alone is sufficient proof, regardless of what you believe about sin.
[4.3] I'm sorry, but God does not have two standards for Christian conduct. You really have no debate as far as I see it.
[4.4] The SIN epitaph for "gay Christian" doctrine, ironically, is the lack of love for struggling believers in Christ that are ex-gay.
The apostle Paul explains it far better in Ist Corinthians 8 regarding Food Sacrificed to Idols (reference New Living Translation):
1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church.
2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.
3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.[a]
4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God.
5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords.
6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated.
8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble.
10 For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol?
11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer[b] for whom Christ died will be destroyed.
12 And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.
13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.
[5.0] So in the end:
- [5.1] it doesn't matter about sin definitions.
- [5.2] it doesn't matter what anyone believes about the gay lifestyle.
- [5.3] it doesn't matter about monogamous loving relationships.
- [5.3b] it doesn't matter that someone feels their gay relationship is without sin, because ex-gay Christians can not live that way and serve Jesus Christ too as they have attested.
- [5.4] it doesn't matter about bible translations.
- [5.5] it doesn't matter about who wants to call themselves a brother or sister in Christ.
- [5.5b] it doesn't matter if ex-gay therapy is a total failure and a fraud.
- [5.6] it doesn't even matter about sex at all.
[5.7] What matters is the body of Christ, and the spiritual damage caused by this so-called "gay affirming Christian" sin-pandering doctrine that says gay sex is not sin. Some Christians that struggle with their Christian beliefs are confused and tempted to go against their conscience. As long as any Christian brother or sister struggles with this issue it doesn't matter about those that don't struggle with it, or those that failed and then returned to same-sex sex.
[5.8] The whole "gay Christian" argument can be defeated with OUR Christian love for brothers and sisters in Christ that are being hurt spiritually by this doctrine that says gay-sex is not sin. The gay affirmers can argue all they like. It's done. The proof is iron-clad.
Summary
"Gay Christianity" is incompatible with Christianity, because it violates the conscience of brothers and sisters in Christ that left same sex-sex to serve Christ.
If that isn't enough proof then consider the following points:
1) God is the perfect creator and author of love and life. If gay-sex were His intention then why did He give gays the physical ability to reproduce, but not with each other in monogamous loving relationships?
2) No reputable translation or translator of the Bible says gay sex is ok -- period.
Revisions
(1) Section 1.3 revised per the first comment.
Comments:
GCMWatch,
Thanks for your information. Curiously, Wayne Besen calls his movement "Truth Wins Out", implying that people can't change, while in reality there are ex-gays that have changed or became celibate. The supposed "immutability of sexual orientation" wasn't supported by Alfred Kinsey, the father of modern sexuality theories:
"Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena (desire, sexual attraction, fantasy)."
Even the APA tip-toes around the facts, saying that no therapist should treat same-sex orientation under the a-priori assumption that it needs to be changed, however it's common knowledge that people have changed sexual orientation. Take Anne Heche as just one example of many.
By the way are you associated with the Gay Christian Movement Watch? I see you are. Thanks for the link up.
Q: What proof do you have that same sex sex was "harming them" (ex-gay Christians)?
A:
[1.0] The damage is spiritual according to some of our (ex-gay) brothers and sisters in Christ by their own personal testimonies. Their personal (ex-gay) testimonies belong to them and not to you. You can not speak for them.
[1.1] It's not about what you believe, or even who you are, it's about what struggling Christian brothers and sisters believe as they try to live for Christ.
[1.2] You believe you are living for Christ, and so do other gays. I'm not debating that, but if I must choose (and I feel that I must), then I choose the group that makes the greatest personal sacrifice for Christ. That group is obviously the ex-gay group, and they are my Christian brothers and sisters that are being hurt by gay rights advocates.
[1.3] Case at point: Ex-gay Watch and Truth Wins Out. Apparently many gays that call themselves Christians are siding with these monstrous groups of hate-mongers headed by men like Wayne Besen (the head of Truth Wins Out). God have mercy on anyone that calls himself/herself a Christian and joins this persecution against believers. (Rev 1)
[2.0] I bring a Christian brother's testimony as a witness:
"I am a Christian man who has struggled with same sex attraction. I am not a practicing homosexual because I know that homosexuality is wrong, know that it is a sin, and know that the Bible is very clear in teaching that it is immoral. I do not try to spin it, rationalize it, or conveniently reinterpret the Scripture. Marital Status: Married."
[2.1] It is sin for a fellow-believer to go against the weakness in another-believer's life, as they have done on the forum on many occasions.
[2.2] On more than one occasion this ex-gay brother said his conscience was offended by his so-called "gay Christian" brothers on the forum. They said God made him gay and it was disobedience for him to refrain from the way God created him. He was supposed to participate in God's ordained gift of gay-sex according to these "gay Christians."
[2.3] Regardless of what you or anyone else believes about sin, it is wrong conduct to offend his weakness.
[3.0] I bring Ist Corinthians 8:12 to witness:
And when you sin against other believers[a] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.
Q: No proof that gays and lesbians aren't your brothers and sisters in Christ.
A:
[3.1] It is incumbent on ANY believer to prove THEY ARE a believer in Jesus Christ. That is their job, not mine. So your objection is irrelevant to the point being made about gay-affirming doctrine, which is sin by definition in I Cor 8. Your objection is a non sequitor.
[3.2] Besides, I think your claim is irrelevant to Christianity anyway: Is someone my brother or sister in Christ simply because they are gay? Faith in Christ is the basis for Christianity.
[3.3] My point is that the gay-affirming doctrine is an open invitation for struggling Christians to go against their own conscience. The gay-affirming proponents claim to be Christians and this is a violation of conscience for the struggling group of ex-gay believers.
Q: "The kind of God you believe in" must be an arbitrary one, if one must obey an arbitrary rule.
A:
[4.0] I believe in a Holy God that brings life to ALL believers. The spirit of same-sex sex kills the spiritual life of ex-gay Christians according to them. The same spirit blesses the spiritual lives of so-called "gay Christians" according to Katherine Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA that ordinated the openly-gay noncelibate bishop Gene Robinson. This can not come from the spirit of Christ, otherwise Christ Himself is a contradiction -- slaying the spirit of one believer and blessing the spirit of another. Therefore, the spirit of same-sex sex can not come from a Holy God.
[4.1] I call the entire ex-gay movement to the witness stand. Regardless of what you believe about them, they are making a tremendous sacrifice to please God, and frankly I think they are trying a lot harder than you are.
[4.2] By their own testimonies they can not be in a same-sex sex relationship and serve God too. That fact alone is sufficient proof, regardless of what you believe about sin.
[4.3] I'm sorry, but God does not have two standards for Christian conduct. You really have no debate as far as I see it.
[4.4] The SIN epitaph for "gay Christian" doctrine, ironically, is the lack of love for struggling believers in Christ that are ex-gay.
The apostle Paul explains it far better in Ist Corinthians 8 regarding Food Sacrificed to Idols (reference New Living Translation):
1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church.
2 Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.
3 But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.[a]
4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God.
5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords.
6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.
7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated.
8 It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.
9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble.
10 For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol?
11 So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer[b] for whom Christ died will be destroyed.
12 And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.
13 So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.
[5.0] So in the end:
- [5.1] it doesn't matter about sin definitions.
- [5.2] it doesn't matter what anyone believes about the gay lifestyle.
- [5.3] it doesn't matter about monogamous loving relationships.
- [5.3b] it doesn't matter that someone feels their gay relationship is without sin, because ex-gay Christians can not live that way and serve Jesus Christ too as they have attested.
- [5.4] it doesn't matter about bible translations.
- [5.5] it doesn't matter about who wants to call themselves a brother or sister in Christ.
- [5.5b] it doesn't matter if ex-gay therapy is a total failure and a fraud.
- [5.6] it doesn't even matter about sex at all.
[5.7] What matters is the body of Christ, and the spiritual damage caused by this so-called "gay affirming Christian" sin-pandering doctrine that says gay sex is not sin. Some Christians that struggle with their Christian beliefs are confused and tempted to go against their conscience. As long as any Christian brother or sister struggles with this issue it doesn't matter about those that don't struggle with it, or those that failed and then returned to same-sex sex.
[5.8] The whole "gay Christian" argument can be defeated with OUR Christian love for brothers and sisters in Christ that are being hurt spiritually by this doctrine that says gay-sex is not sin. The gay affirmers can argue all they like. It's done. The proof is iron-clad.
Summary
"Gay Christianity" is incompatible with Christianity, because it violates the conscience of brothers and sisters in Christ that left same sex-sex to serve Christ.
If that isn't enough proof then consider the following points:
1) God is the perfect creator and author of love and life. If gay-sex were His intention then why did He give gays the physical ability to reproduce, but not with each other in monogamous loving relationships?
2) No reputable translation or translator of the Bible says gay sex is ok -- period.
Revisions
(1) Section 1.3 revised per the first comment.
Comments:
GCMWatch,
Thanks for your information. Curiously, Wayne Besen calls his movement "Truth Wins Out", implying that people can't change, while in reality there are ex-gays that have changed or became celibate. The supposed "immutability of sexual orientation" wasn't supported by Alfred Kinsey, the father of modern sexuality theories:
"Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, asserting that sexuality is prone to change over time, and that sexual behavior can be understood both as physical contact as well as purely psychological phenomena (desire, sexual attraction, fantasy)."
Even the APA tip-toes around the facts, saying that no therapist should treat same-sex orientation under the a-priori assumption that it needs to be changed, however it's common knowledge that people have changed sexual orientation. Take Anne Heche as just one example of many.
By the way are you associated with the Gay Christian Movement Watch? I see you are. Thanks for the link up.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Polygamy is for Primitive Uneducated Cultures
Introduction
Polygamy is illegal in America, and it is not the way the Bible intended marriage to be. Polygamy legitimizes the dead-beat father. World cultures with polygamous marriage are primitive, violent, poor and uneducated without exception.
In the state of Utah, multiple partnering is a widely accepted practice in the Mormon (LDS) religion. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion said he received a revelation to practice polygamy, and he brought this practice to Utah. Utah had to ban polygamy to receive statehood in the union. This article is a revelation on the social and economic failures associated with this form of so-called marriage.
Polygamy hurts in the pocket
Attached are some excerpts and analysis from the following web-site:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy298.html
“A husband with several wives and many children usually spends his money on quantity rather than quality, and therefore his children receive a mediocre or even poor education. This, in turn, lowers the education level of those societies in which polygamy is a common practice.
That is the conclusion of three Hebrew University professors in a report called "The Mystery of Monogamy". It is based on a study conducted in the African country of Ivory Coast. “
“Eric Gould is a Hebrew University economics professor and one of the authors of the report. He told RFE/RL that the purpose of the research was to look at the correlation between polygamy and economic development, since all of the societies in which polygamy is practiced are developing countries, while monogamy is common practice in all developed countries.”
“The study said polygamy used to be practiced in the West but died out as the societies developed and education became a key to prosperity. “
“Having more than one wife was a widespread practice in pre-Christian and pre-Islamic societies. Nowadays, it still exists mainly in Thailand, sub-Saharan Africa, and in some other Islamic countries. “
“Gould said the study on polygamy showed that the correlation between polygamy and Islam is not as strong as the linkage between polygamy and the level of economic development. “
“Gould said governments in poorer countries need to subsidize education. If there is a firmer link between a country's wealth and its human capital, governments will encourage men to devote themselves to finding a single, educated woman and fathering only a few children - rather than having several wives and many children.”
The Bible and Polygamy
On a Christian forum, a poster made the following notable quote regarding polygamy:
“The Bible blesses polygamous marriages the same way it blesses 1 man + 1 woman marriages.”
He was asked:
“So can you explain to us where God says polygamy is a good thing, and show where that's His plan for marriage. Can you also show us where Jesus approves of a plural marriage relationship instead of calling it adultery?”
His response was:
“First of all, let's look at some of the polygamists God blessed:
Jacob marries Leah and Rachel. (Genesis 29)
God causes his flocks to increase (Genesis 30) and is personally blessed by God (Genesis 32:22-32). Nowhere does God rebuke Jacob for taking two wives.
King David had many wives (2 Samuel 12:11-12). The context of this passage is the prophet Nathan cursing David for committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah to cover up the affair; however, he doesn't reprimand David for polygamy.
King Solomon had many wives, as well (2 Kings 11). While the passage here is negative, it does not condemn his polygamy; instead it condemns the fact his wives followed other religions.
Biblical laws regarding polygamy:Exodus 21:7-11 states that if a man marries a woman who is a slave, and then marries another woman, he must still treat the first wife with all marital rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 regards the situation of inheritance when a man is married to two women and has a son by each of them.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 concerns the case of a childless widow. The law states that the dead man's brother should then wed her, and doesn't make allowances for if the surviving brother is already married or not.
To bring the New Testament in on this, Jesus was asked about the last law in Matthew 22:23-33. Did Jesus then condemn the polygamous practice? Nope.
The Bible addresses polygamy in many passages, yet nowhere does it condemn it. In fact, it sets up laws governing it.
If you want to deny homosexuals the right to marriage by saying "The Bible defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman," be advised that the Bible also recognizes and blesses polygamy.”
As you can see from his response, the polygamous marriage issue is interwoven with gay marriage.
Big Love in the Rocky Mountains of the USA
Hildale the US Capital of Big Love
“HILDALE -- Government was once a sworn enemy of polygamy. Now, it is a benevolent uncle. Welfare is a way of life in the polygamous communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., where more than a third of the residents accept food stamps to support the huge families their old-style faith demands. "If it wasn't for government subsidies, these people couldn't survive," said Benjamin Bistline, who has renounced polygamy, but still lives in town. "There are people here with 15 wives on welfare."
Nearly every facet of life in this impoverished desert community on the Utah-Arizona border -- with a combined population of 5,274 -- is dominated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), the largest polygamous assembly in North America. Most girls marry in their teen-age years.”
“Polygamists in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., have low incomes, calling into question whether they can support their large numbers of children without taxpayer assistance.”
Hildale and Colorado City at a Glance:
Polygamists in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., have low incomes, calling into question whether they can support their large numbers of children without taxpayer assistance.
Hildale, Utah
......................................Hildale.................................Utah...............
Median age.....................13.1 Youngest in state...26.8 Youngest in nation
Persons per household....8.55 Largest in state.......3.13 Largest in nation
Avg household income*...$21,822..........................$41,316
Per capita income..............$3,772.Lowest in state...$14,492
% of families in poverty.....32.4%..............................11.4%
*Average household adjusted gross income from federal tax returnsSource: Utah Tax Commission 1995, US Census, Utah and ArizonaDepartments of Education.
Colorado City, Arizona
.........................................Colorado City...............Arizona
Median age........................12.5 Youngest in state......32.2
Persons per household.......7.97 Largest in state.........2.62
Avg household income*.....$19,663............................$35,426
Per capita income..............$2,319..............................$13,461
% of families in poverty.......61%..................................11.4%
*Average household adjusted gross income from federal tax returns Source: Utah Tax Commission 1995, US Census, Utah and Arizona Departments of Education.
“Today there are more than 5,000 residents, nearly all of them believers in polygamy.
Polygamy and AIDS
In sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is one of the root causes to the AIDS epidemic. :
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=44290
"The practice of having one sexual partner at a time "traps the virus in a relationship for months or years at a time" and "considerably slows" the progress of HIV through the population, while the "practice of formal or informal polygamy links sexually active people not only to one another but also to the partners of their partners ... creating a giant web that can extend across huge regions," Epstein writes. "
http://www.world-links.org/aidsweb/goal3.html
"Ghanaian participants raised the issue of whether polygamy promotes or hinders the spread of HIV. Zimbabweans agreed that polygamy spreads HIV, with the reasoning that one or more of the wives in a polygamous marriage may have outside partners."
In summary, polygamy spreads STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).
Conclusion
In conclusion the social statistics tell us that polygamy is nothing more than a welfare program. The result is poverty, low education, and teen pregnancy. It also has health risks. It does not belong in a civilized country like America.
Polygamy is illegal in America, and it is not the way the Bible intended marriage to be. Polygamy legitimizes the dead-beat father. World cultures with polygamous marriage are primitive, violent, poor and uneducated without exception.
In the state of Utah, multiple partnering is a widely accepted practice in the Mormon (LDS) religion. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion said he received a revelation to practice polygamy, and he brought this practice to Utah. Utah had to ban polygamy to receive statehood in the union. This article is a revelation on the social and economic failures associated with this form of so-called marriage.
Polygamy hurts in the pocket
Attached are some excerpts and analysis from the following web-site:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy298.html
“A husband with several wives and many children usually spends his money on quantity rather than quality, and therefore his children receive a mediocre or even poor education. This, in turn, lowers the education level of those societies in which polygamy is a common practice.
That is the conclusion of three Hebrew University professors in a report called "The Mystery of Monogamy". It is based on a study conducted in the African country of Ivory Coast. “
“Eric Gould is a Hebrew University economics professor and one of the authors of the report. He told RFE/RL that the purpose of the research was to look at the correlation between polygamy and economic development, since all of the societies in which polygamy is practiced are developing countries, while monogamy is common practice in all developed countries.”
“The study said polygamy used to be practiced in the West but died out as the societies developed and education became a key to prosperity. “
“Having more than one wife was a widespread practice in pre-Christian and pre-Islamic societies. Nowadays, it still exists mainly in Thailand, sub-Saharan Africa, and in some other Islamic countries. “
“Gould said the study on polygamy showed that the correlation between polygamy and Islam is not as strong as the linkage between polygamy and the level of economic development. “
“Gould said governments in poorer countries need to subsidize education. If there is a firmer link between a country's wealth and its human capital, governments will encourage men to devote themselves to finding a single, educated woman and fathering only a few children - rather than having several wives and many children.”
The Bible and Polygamy
On a Christian forum, a poster made the following notable quote regarding polygamy:
“The Bible blesses polygamous marriages the same way it blesses 1 man + 1 woman marriages.”
He was asked:
“So can you explain to us where God says polygamy is a good thing, and show where that's His plan for marriage. Can you also show us where Jesus approves of a plural marriage relationship instead of calling it adultery?”
His response was:
“First of all, let's look at some of the polygamists God blessed:
Jacob marries Leah and Rachel. (Genesis 29)
God causes his flocks to increase (Genesis 30) and is personally blessed by God (Genesis 32:22-32). Nowhere does God rebuke Jacob for taking two wives.
King David had many wives (2 Samuel 12:11-12). The context of this passage is the prophet Nathan cursing David for committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah to cover up the affair; however, he doesn't reprimand David for polygamy.
King Solomon had many wives, as well (2 Kings 11). While the passage here is negative, it does not condemn his polygamy; instead it condemns the fact his wives followed other religions.
Biblical laws regarding polygamy:Exodus 21:7-11 states that if a man marries a woman who is a slave, and then marries another woman, he must still treat the first wife with all marital rights.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 regards the situation of inheritance when a man is married to two women and has a son by each of them.
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 concerns the case of a childless widow. The law states that the dead man's brother should then wed her, and doesn't make allowances for if the surviving brother is already married or not.
To bring the New Testament in on this, Jesus was asked about the last law in Matthew 22:23-33. Did Jesus then condemn the polygamous practice? Nope.
The Bible addresses polygamy in many passages, yet nowhere does it condemn it. In fact, it sets up laws governing it.
If you want to deny homosexuals the right to marriage by saying "The Bible defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman," be advised that the Bible also recognizes and blesses polygamy.”
As you can see from his response, the polygamous marriage issue is interwoven with gay marriage.
Big Love in the Rocky Mountains of the USA
Hildale the US Capital of Big Love
“HILDALE -- Government was once a sworn enemy of polygamy. Now, it is a benevolent uncle. Welfare is a way of life in the polygamous communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., where more than a third of the residents accept food stamps to support the huge families their old-style faith demands. "If it wasn't for government subsidies, these people couldn't survive," said Benjamin Bistline, who has renounced polygamy, but still lives in town. "There are people here with 15 wives on welfare."
Nearly every facet of life in this impoverished desert community on the Utah-Arizona border -- with a combined population of 5,274 -- is dominated by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), the largest polygamous assembly in North America. Most girls marry in their teen-age years.”
“Polygamists in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., have low incomes, calling into question whether they can support their large numbers of children without taxpayer assistance.”
Hildale and Colorado City at a Glance:
Polygamists in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., have low incomes, calling into question whether they can support their large numbers of children without taxpayer assistance.
Hildale, Utah
......................................Hildale.................................Utah...............
Median age.....................13.1 Youngest in state...26.8 Youngest in nation
Persons per household....8.55 Largest in state.......3.13 Largest in nation
Avg household income*...$21,822..........................$41,316
Per capita income..............$3,772.Lowest in state...$14,492
% of families in poverty.....32.4%..............................11.4%
*Average household adjusted gross income from federal tax returnsSource: Utah Tax Commission 1995, US Census, Utah and ArizonaDepartments of Education.
Colorado City, Arizona
.........................................Colorado City...............Arizona
Median age........................12.5 Youngest in state......32.2
Persons per household.......7.97 Largest in state.........2.62
Avg household income*.....$19,663............................$35,426
Per capita income..............$2,319..............................$13,461
% of families in poverty.......61%..................................11.4%
*Average household adjusted gross income from federal tax returns Source: Utah Tax Commission 1995, US Census, Utah and Arizona Departments of Education.
“Today there are more than 5,000 residents, nearly all of them believers in polygamy.
Polygamy and AIDS
In sub-Saharan Africa, polygamy is one of the root causes to the AIDS epidemic. :
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_r...fm?DR_ID=44290
"The practice of having one sexual partner at a time "traps the virus in a relationship for months or years at a time" and "considerably slows" the progress of HIV through the population, while the "practice of formal or informal polygamy links sexually active people not only to one another but also to the partners of their partners ... creating a giant web that can extend across huge regions," Epstein writes. "
http://www.world-links.org/aidsweb/goal3.html
"Ghanaian participants raised the issue of whether polygamy promotes or hinders the spread of HIV. Zimbabweans agreed that polygamy spreads HIV, with the reasoning that one or more of the wives in a polygamous marriage may have outside partners."
In summary, polygamy spreads STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).
Conclusion
In conclusion the social statistics tell us that polygamy is nothing more than a welfare program. The result is poverty, low education, and teen pregnancy. It also has health risks. It does not belong in a civilized country like America.
Good day and God bless.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Gay Men Plagued by Health Issues
Introduction
Gay men in North America have higher health risks than most people, and this fact is clearly recognized by our public health organizations. Even some of the more militant gay-rights advocates are co-operating with health authorities to reduce the HIV/AIDS crisis. Some gay-affirmers are determined to minimize and trivialize their efforts by making their political views more important than the lives of the people they represent.
These gay-advocates are out to do destigmatize their cause by legitimizing diseases. I feel this approach is unconscionable, and unacceptable in a civil society.
The information presented in this article comes from some of the most credible public health resources available. The information is founded in scientific research that is intended to help humanity. It is the best, most honest information available for saving human lives.
[1] Warnings from the Centers for Disease Control
This clear warning comes from the Centers for Disease Control, a US government funded agency that is fully accountable for controlling disease epidemics in the United States:
"MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men."
(MSM is an abbreviation for men who have sex with men.)
As the report says a small segment of the US population (MSM) accounts for more than half of ALL male HIV/AIDS cases in the USA. A reasonable person would conclude that MSM have a much higher risk of getting the HIV infection.
But some gay-advocates, with their compasses set on auto-pilot, trivialize the message by pointing to HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, as they try to de-stigmatize HIV away from homosexual men in North America. Obviously sub-Saharan Africa has nothing to do with American public health policy, and everything to do with furthering their gay agenda. This obstructionism doesn't save human lives in America.
[2] Gay men are in Denial according to the Barcelona AIDS Conference
North American homosexual men live in denial to their health risks and this causes the HIV/AIDS epidemic to get worse. From the Barcelona AIDS conference:
"The study involved 5,719 men who were interviewed at dance clubs, bars and other places frequented by gays in Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and Seattle. It tested the men for exposure to the AIDS virus, finding that 573 had H.I.V. Of those, 440, or 77 percent, had said they were unaware they were infected. The results of the H.I.V. tests were available to the men, but it is not known how many sought them, or learned that they were infected."
Nearly ten per cent of the men in these cities with a large gay population had HIV, and most of them didn't even know it. Are they representative of other cities in the USA? Probably so. Don't most young gay men go to bars, dance clubs, and such to meet other gay men? Probably so. Yet some gay-affirmers argue that these cities aren't representative. If the population samples weren't representative, then why did the public health officials choose them for the study? This is an attack on their credibility.
[3] Gay men have a shortened lifespan in Canada
In a major Canadian city it was found that Gay men didn't live as long. This result came from the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology
"CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
Again some gay affirmers tell us the data is not representative. If this major Canadian city was not representative for modeling the impact of HIV/AIDS on the homosexual male population, then why was it used in a study? That would be a waste of research funding, and someone should demand a full refund from RS Hogg who conducted the study.
The author of the study, RS Hogg, after some obvious pressuring from gay-political activists, issued a letter to the editor some four years later, to say things have changed. Oddly he presented no scientific data to support his own statements which appeared to make his study a little more "PC" compatible. Neither did he retract the original findings of his study. The study showed that gay men in North American cities won't live as long.
[4] So-called "Monogamous" Gay Relationships are Deadly
Finally a research study from the Netherlands puts it in perspective about "gay monogamous relationships" as it demonstrates these relationships are probably just as deadly if not more deadly than the promiscuous ones. The gay men in these "partnered" relationships have a false sense of security and engage in more risky behaviors according to the study. Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for several years.
https://www.aidsmeds.com/news/20030514epid001.html
This web site is written for and by people that have the HIV virus, and this report comes from Reuters Health:
"Dr. Xiridou and colleagues developed a mathematical model to assess the proportions of steady and casual partners that were sources of HIV infection among Amsterdam's young homosexual population.They found that 86% of new HIV infections are now occurring within steady partnerships. Moreover, the model suggests that the increases in risky sexual behavior among steady partners may counterbalance the benefits of HAART."
HAART is an anti-viral medication being used to treat HIV infections in the Netherlands. Well, so much for the health benefits of "gay loving monogamous relationships" that are touted so vigorously by gay-rights advocates. The health benefits don't add up.
The full results of the Netherlands gay marriage study are available in the Official Journal of the International AIDS Society. The conclusion says and I quote:
"Conclusion: Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships. Prevention measures should address risky behaviour, specifically with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing."
In the Netherlands, the "loving monogamous same-sex" model is a public health disaster.
In addition, only about 2% of the gay population chooses to marry in the Netherlands where it has been legal for more than 7 years.
"Why So Few Gay Marriages? First published in the Bay Area Reporter on May 11, 2006.The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, has just issued a new report finding that relatively few gay couples are getting married in jurisdictions where gay marriage is permitted. Is this correct? If it is, why are there so few gay marriages so far? Here's a summary of the findings from the report:
The highest estimate to date of the proportion of gays and lesbians who have married in any jurisdiction where it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts). More typically, our survey of marriage statistics from various countries that legally recognize same-sex unions suggests that today between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage.
The Independent Gay Forum agrees with the findings:
"The report derives these numbers by comparing the total number of same-sex marriages in a jurisdiction to an estimate of the total number of adult homosexuals in the jurisdiction (based on survey data). While we could quibble over the estimates of the number of gays in a given jurisdiction, the report uses a range of reasonable assumptions. "
http://www.indegayforum.org/topics/show/30947.html
Conclusion
Now I'm sure somebody will come along and argue that this is all hate propaganda, and an orchestration of persecution, but I have to wonder if they are thinking rationally. These are credible public health protectors that are here to help us. Why can't everyone let them do their job? Is political correctness more important than saving human lives? Apparently it is to some people, and I honestly can't understand why. Their opposition to the truth just doesn't seem to be mentally sound. I expect there could be some law suits, and rightfully so. A few law suits would probably help the health authorities deal with these irresponsible obstructionists.
Good day and God bless you.
Reference Links:
Real Proposal for Marriage Magazine, New Bacteria Strain found among Gay Men
http://www.therealproposal.com/815503.html
NY Times Article about New Bacteria Strain found among Gay Men
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?em&ex=1200718800&en=d8f1d09b1e96ae83&ei=5087%0A
Annals of Internal Medicine, New Bacteria Strain attacks MSM through anal sex
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1
Gay men in North America have higher health risks than most people, and this fact is clearly recognized by our public health organizations. Even some of the more militant gay-rights advocates are co-operating with health authorities to reduce the HIV/AIDS crisis. Some gay-affirmers are determined to minimize and trivialize their efforts by making their political views more important than the lives of the people they represent.
These gay-advocates are out to do destigmatize their cause by legitimizing diseases. I feel this approach is unconscionable, and unacceptable in a civil society.
The information presented in this article comes from some of the most credible public health resources available. The information is founded in scientific research that is intended to help humanity. It is the best, most honest information available for saving human lives.
[1] Warnings from the Centers for Disease Control
This clear warning comes from the Centers for Disease Control, a US government funded agency that is fully accountable for controlling disease epidemics in the United States:
"MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men."
(MSM is an abbreviation for men who have sex with men.)
As the report says a small segment of the US population (MSM) accounts for more than half of ALL male HIV/AIDS cases in the USA. A reasonable person would conclude that MSM have a much higher risk of getting the HIV infection.
But some gay-advocates, with their compasses set on auto-pilot, trivialize the message by pointing to HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, as they try to de-stigmatize HIV away from homosexual men in North America. Obviously sub-Saharan Africa has nothing to do with American public health policy, and everything to do with furthering their gay agenda. This obstructionism doesn't save human lives in America.
[2] Gay men are in Denial according to the Barcelona AIDS Conference
North American homosexual men live in denial to their health risks and this causes the HIV/AIDS epidemic to get worse. From the Barcelona AIDS conference:
"The study involved 5,719 men who were interviewed at dance clubs, bars and other places frequented by gays in Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and Seattle. It tested the men for exposure to the AIDS virus, finding that 573 had H.I.V. Of those, 440, or 77 percent, had said they were unaware they were infected. The results of the H.I.V. tests were available to the men, but it is not known how many sought them, or learned that they were infected."
Nearly ten per cent of the men in these cities with a large gay population had HIV, and most of them didn't even know it. Are they representative of other cities in the USA? Probably so. Don't most young gay men go to bars, dance clubs, and such to meet other gay men? Probably so. Yet some gay-affirmers argue that these cities aren't representative. If the population samples weren't representative, then why did the public health officials choose them for the study? This is an attack on their credibility.
[3] Gay men have a shortened lifespan in Canada
In a major Canadian city it was found that Gay men didn't live as long. This result came from the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology
"CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
Again some gay affirmers tell us the data is not representative. If this major Canadian city was not representative for modeling the impact of HIV/AIDS on the homosexual male population, then why was it used in a study? That would be a waste of research funding, and someone should demand a full refund from RS Hogg who conducted the study.
The author of the study, RS Hogg, after some obvious pressuring from gay-political activists, issued a letter to the editor some four years later, to say things have changed. Oddly he presented no scientific data to support his own statements which appeared to make his study a little more "PC" compatible. Neither did he retract the original findings of his study. The study showed that gay men in North American cities won't live as long.
[4] So-called "Monogamous" Gay Relationships are Deadly
Finally a research study from the Netherlands puts it in perspective about "gay monogamous relationships" as it demonstrates these relationships are probably just as deadly if not more deadly than the promiscuous ones. The gay men in these "partnered" relationships have a false sense of security and engage in more risky behaviors according to the study. Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands for several years.
https://www.aidsmeds.com/news/20030514epid001.html
This web site is written for and by people that have the HIV virus, and this report comes from Reuters Health:
"Dr. Xiridou and colleagues developed a mathematical model to assess the proportions of steady and casual partners that were sources of HIV infection among Amsterdam's young homosexual population.They found that 86% of new HIV infections are now occurring within steady partnerships. Moreover, the model suggests that the increases in risky sexual behavior among steady partners may counterbalance the benefits of HAART."
HAART is an anti-viral medication being used to treat HIV infections in the Netherlands. Well, so much for the health benefits of "gay loving monogamous relationships" that are touted so vigorously by gay-rights advocates. The health benefits don't add up.
The full results of the Netherlands gay marriage study are available in the Official Journal of the International AIDS Society. The conclusion says and I quote:
"Conclusion: Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships. Prevention measures should address risky behaviour, specifically with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing."
In the Netherlands, the "loving monogamous same-sex" model is a public health disaster.
In addition, only about 2% of the gay population chooses to marry in the Netherlands where it has been legal for more than 7 years.
"Why So Few Gay Marriages? First published in the Bay Area Reporter on May 11, 2006.The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage, has just issued a new report finding that relatively few gay couples are getting married in jurisdictions where gay marriage is permitted. Is this correct? If it is, why are there so few gay marriages so far? Here's a summary of the findings from the report:
The highest estimate to date of the proportion of gays and lesbians who have married in any jurisdiction where it is available is 16.7% (Massachusetts). More typically, our survey of marriage statistics from various countries that legally recognize same-sex unions suggests that today between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage.
The Independent Gay Forum agrees with the findings:
"The report derives these numbers by comparing the total number of same-sex marriages in a jurisdiction to an estimate of the total number of adult homosexuals in the jurisdiction (based on survey data). While we could quibble over the estimates of the number of gays in a given jurisdiction, the report uses a range of reasonable assumptions. "
http://www.indegayforum.org/topics/show/30947.html
Conclusion
Now I'm sure somebody will come along and argue that this is all hate propaganda, and an orchestration of persecution, but I have to wonder if they are thinking rationally. These are credible public health protectors that are here to help us. Why can't everyone let them do their job? Is political correctness more important than saving human lives? Apparently it is to some people, and I honestly can't understand why. Their opposition to the truth just doesn't seem to be mentally sound. I expect there could be some law suits, and rightfully so. A few law suits would probably help the health authorities deal with these irresponsible obstructionists.
Good day and God bless you.
Reference Links:
Real Proposal for Marriage Magazine, New Bacteria Strain found among Gay Men
http://www.therealproposal.com/815503.html
NY Times Article about New Bacteria Strain found among Gay Men
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html?em&ex=1200718800&en=d8f1d09b1e96ae83&ei=5087%0A
Annals of Internal Medicine, New Bacteria Strain attacks MSM through anal sex
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-00204v1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)