Sin Epitaph for Liberal Churches

And the trend continues as liberal church denominations fade into oblivion.  Some will be gone in 30 years or less. This happened before -- recall the carnal church at Corinth that no longer exists?

 Alexander Griswold shows us how the liberal churches chose their paths to the graveyard in his article "How to Shrink Your Church in one Easy Step"  As the churches fold up and the pensions along with them -- the liberal church leaders continue to be unconcerned.

Marriage without Honor that Demands Respect

The U.S. Supreme Court abandoned moral conscience by ruling that traditional marriage is unconstitutional though it has been around since the days of Noah when gay marriage was last purged from humanity.  Yes, it was tried before but we all know how that story ended.  It's a nice study from the Hebrew Talmud. That was then, and now it's time for some accountability.

The gay-marriage gold medal award goes to the women's suffrage movement.  

As you may recall from the earliest recorded history in the Bible, the first woman, Eve, helped seal the fate of death for all of humanity by over-riding God's only rule at the time -- to avoid eating a certain forbidden fruit.  Her husband Adam followed suit though he knew he was clearly in the wrong.  Many would say the story is ridiculous, or perhaps they have their own version according to their religious views. 

Regardless of what you think about this Bible-story, we see a picture of fallen humanity where the woman made a poor choice and the man didn't have the conviction to do the right thing.  The woman, who was unsatisfied with her role, wanted to be like a god and diminished her own authority as a result.  

Rolling the calendar forward -- Eve was given a second chance through the women's suffrage movement.  It was a golden opportunity, but it brought shameful results.  First it was Rowe v. Wade in the 1970s where a woman's right to choose an abortion trumped a child's right to live.  The courts have decided that two lives are taken when a pregnant woman is murdered. 

Then around the turn of the century along came gay marriage.  It wouldn't be here without the white feminist movement.  Gay marriage is predominately for white females by the way.

So, in summary, abortion and gay marriage are the legacy of the women's suffrage movement.  Eve didn't learn a thing. 

The silver medal goes to the US Supreme Court. 

All my life I heard the Supreme Court ruled based on ethical conscience through the constitutional eye-glass rather than popularity and trends, but this time it was different.  Was the Constitution written with gay-marriage in mind?  That idea is laughable.  

The miscegenous marriage analogy has been raised as a counterpoint to show us the framers of the Constitution got it wrong in 1776.  Analogies are the weakest form of argument: whites were allowed to marry American Indians in the 1700s.  There are supposedly "full-blooded whites" that have Indian ancestry.  I am one of them. There are African American Christians that disagree with gay marriage too.  The miscegenous marriage argument doesn't hold for them.

Looking further into the character of the Supreme Court we find a monopoly for Jews and Catholics.   There are no openings for the Protestant faith.  All the female justices voted for gay marriage by the way -- thanks to women's suffrage.

The bronze medal goes to the Obama Administration. 

Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder (both of them African Americans) decided they wouldn't defend marriage.  As you may recall, president Obama doesn't have a real father either.  Looking back in history we find that Ham, the father of the African race brought a curse of servitude to his posterity, and this curse is related to the issue that is before us today.  Ham apparently sodomized his own father, Noah, who was passed-out drunk at the time.  His posterity has been fighting for freedom ever since.

So there's the thumbnail of gay marriage and the accountability.  Eve overstepped her authority in the garden and brought death to the human race, and Ham exchanged liberty for a moral depravity.  History has a way of repeating itself.  God have mercy on America.

Prop 8 and Arguments Against "Accidental Pregnancies"

This blog post is a rebuttal to:  “Argument against gay marriage in California hinges on accidental pregnancies”, Liz Goodwin, Yahoo News, March 4, 2013

Introduction

It doesn’t take long to figure Yahoo’s position on gay marriage.  The company is located in the liberal state of California where the democratic process and the will of the people has been bypassed not once but twice by gay judicial activists.  The liberal-minded writers at Yahoo are in full support of the judicial tyranny as they write analogies about “marriage equality,” whereas gay marriage really has no equal.

The gay marriage argument assumes a “crystal ball” by comparing a gay union to a traditional marriage that is childless by choice-or-circumstances.  The crystal ball is broken because there are children from these types of “childless” traditional-marriages where the outcomes are different from what everyone understood when they entered those marriages.  

Article Content

In the article referenced above Liz said “One of many potential pitfalls of the (traditional marriage) argument is whether it follows that the government could pass a law saying that only fertile people are allowed to wed, for example, or whether the state could ban marriage between elderly people.”

Dialogue

Christine said: "It's a woman's instinct to have children in the context of marriage." HA HA HA. Oh my God, are you kidding me?!

SRF said:   WOW Christine -- you're way out of touch with womanhood!!!  You are the riot!  Here's the same  question over at yahoo answers:

• Q:"They say women want babies because it's a "natural instinct", but what does that mean?" 

• A: "It's kind of programmed in our brains that once our bodies know we're in the peak of baby-making days, it is almost impossible to get off our minds. We see other women who are lucky to have babies and start wonderful families, and want that for ourselves.  We want that miracle of life.  SO SUE US!!!!!!“

BluesFan1 said:  Those (childless) marriages don't last? Really? My husband and I got married knowing we would not have children, by choice. Yet, here we are, 13 1/2 yrs married and we've been together for over 20 yrs. So what other ridiculous statements do you have?”

SRF said:   @ Bluesfan -- our beloved government is publishing that "ridiculous statement" over at the U.S.  Bureau of Social Statistics. Only three out of ten childless marriages last 10 years.  Now I have a question for you: Where is a traditionally married couple WITH CHILDREN that thinks procreation is trivial in a marriage? I've heard from several specious "childless marriages" like yours.

Allen said:  My brother and his wife have been married 25 yrs with no kids. Plus the fact that there are such things as infertile couples who got married knowing they would never have them. You are an idiot.

SRF said:   @ Allen, there could be an idiot in the room but I don’t think it’s me.  A doctor told my cousin and her husband they'd NEVER have kids so they adopted a baby boy and showed him off at our family re-unions year after year. We watched him grow up -- then -- she got pregnant and had another boy. Well, Allen, so much for your "broken crystal ball" of an argument.

SRF said:  If the states banned marriage between elderly people nobody would enforce it. Grandparents raise a lot of kids these days.

 

Skyliner said:  The whole matter of parenting depends on the possibility that the parenting couple will be having intercourse and there is a possibility of pregnancy. At least, so say some.

SRF said: @ Skyliner how does someone determine whether a marriage will be childless or not? I can understand the chances are really slim with elderly people -- BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Paulo Wen said:   (the decline of marriage) … is all the more reason to not discriminate against same sex couples.

SRF said: @ Paulo -- With all due respect I do not believe that gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and I've looked at it for many years, wondering how my Creator could allow such a difficult situation for gay people.  I do think gays should have civil rights in the context of their union which I don't agree with, but this is America.  The facts are NOT forthcoming regarding gay parenting and gay marriage is an irrevocable decision. Until someone can PROVE a benefit from gay marriage that is shared with the rest of our society -- I think it is wise to wait. The courts have already evaluated the social impact of traditional marriage on the society we live in.  It's a fact that children from this kind of family unit are more likely to get a college education, find a job, and start a stable family unit of their own.

The Inequality of Marriage Equality

The Inequality of Marriage Equality

February 2013

The purpose of this blog-post is to help God-honoring Christians understand the current debate about gay-marriage compared to the marriage-ordination we received from the Holy Bible.  The Bible is clear on the subject, but that's not enough for judicial activists.  Hopefully, this blog post will help us prepare for what's to come.

Introduction

A new social-experiment is being forced on society in the name of “marriage equality” that redefines marriage irrevocably – meaning there is no return once the traditional definition of marriage is changed from a man and a woman to include gay-marriage.  As the saying goes, a little bit of corruption spoils the whole batch.

The US Supreme Court will hear two cases on March 26 and 27 that challenge the definition of marriage and they will be decided by one vote – Justice Kennedy.  If marriage is redefined it will signal an end is coming to marriage-culture in America according to some academicians.  At a minimum the traditional-definition of marriage will continue to be challenged at state-levels.

Background

Our fatherless president, Barack Obama, grew up outside of the marriage-culture and obviously has little understanding of it.  He decided the traditional-definition of marriage is indefensible as it is spelled out in DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) though it was passed by a bipartisan congress and senate and a democratic president signed DOMA into law to affirm the federal definition of marriage – which was a man and a woman as it applied to federal benefits.  Obama the illegitimate, bypassed the democratic process and the Creator he claims to worship.  

Barack Obama claims DOMA was passed without "reasonable cause" or a "rational basis" for the sole purpose of discriminating against gay Americans, and he refuses to defend it.  Obama has many other extreme views that his own party can't accept and it's little wonder the US government is the most dysfunctional it's ever been since the days of the founding fathers.  His claim to the Christian faith goes against the Creator's design as well, and his fate awaits him.  God have mercy.

DOMA came about when Hawaii (his state of birth)  challenged the standard-definition of marriage known by everyone, and the act stood by the definition of marriage that was applied to all previous federal legislation.  The federal definition of marriage remained consistent with what it always had been and the states continued to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves under federal principles.  

Some of the same democrats that passed the bill are still serving in the government today and recently they changed their minds about gay-marriage for some curious reason – like maybe their convictions go no further than the voting booth.  Currently there are millions of Americans that think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but they draw the line with traditional-marriage.  

The president acknowledges that many Americans feel this way, but according to him -- gays will not have equal protection under the law unless the definition of marriage is changed, even though other unions are available to address their unique circumstances which differ from traditional-marriage.  The argument says their union is equal to traditional-marriage and hence the definition of marriage must change so they will benefit equally under the law.  

Hence, with the new definition of marriage in place -- you could find gay-couples one evening cruising gay-bars in pursuit of liberty while traditionally-married parents were staying up all night with babies and going to work the next morning -- each group of couples doing something common to their cultures -- and somehow this scenario requires equal protection in the context of "marriage."

The Culture of Marriage

Marriage has been defined as a man and a woman throughout the ages and through all societies and cultures.  It’s well understood that procreation is the building-block for a society, and that parents want a viable-habitat for their offspring as they become future-citizens and do likewise with their offspring.  The courts recognize that two biological-parents have a genetically-vested-interest in posterity that no other parenting arrangement offers.

 

It's a basic human-instinct felt by both biological-parents – and it's a strong-bond that assures the health and well-being of children, grand-children, and future-generations.  Courts and legislative bodies recognize the importance of biological-parenting.  Tax codes and property laws are designed to help facilitate everything from child-rearing to property-inheritance.  Even though our president is a parent he does not seem to understand the marriage-culture or the fragility of traditional-marriage at this time in history.  He views government as a surrogate-parent for everyone where he’s the father.

Gay Rights in America

Gays have been stigmatized and persecuted through the ages because of an inclination they have that is not fully understood.  It apparently comes from a combination of social, environmental, and biological factors.  The courts recognize it’s a deeply-felt condition and it goes to the core of their personal identities but it hasn't reached a class-status like race or sex that justifies a heightened review for discrimination in the court system.

Gay people live in a world that’s hard to fit-into.  It’s argued that they made poor moral-choices and they need to change.  Some have changed – but the vast majority of those that tried have failed and many live with a condition they don’t want.   For them it’s a pitiable situation. They continue to function in society, but they’re unable to pursue the same dreams that other people have -- including marriage.

Gay-marriage has been proposed to help change this situation for them, but does it also change the situation for everyone else as well?  Once gay-marriage becomes law it’s irrevocable and there is no history of gay-marriage to go by. 

Many Americans feel the facts have not been forthcoming. This makes them feel uneasy about the uncertainties surrounding gay-marriage and its irrevocability.  Hence some states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as a man and a woman until the democratic process can sort things out.

Gold Standard for Marriage and Parenting

Childbearing is typical in a traditional-marriage and it’s the gold-standard where both parents are responsible for the care, development, and upbringing of their biological-children.  Children from this unit are most likely to get an education beyond high school, maintain employment, and continue in the marriage-tradition according to social statistics.  The gold-standard is impossible for gay couples, and hence it’s trivialized in the gay-marriage argument.

Marriage laws provide a safety-net for all family-members in the events of unplanned-pregnancy, birth-defects, childbirth through marital-infidelity, divorce, and disposition of family inheritance.  This safety-net seems rather inappropriate for gay-couples with no vested interest in biological-parenting.  As an analogy, it's like a perfectly healthy person parking in an empty handicapped-space that’s convenient to their cause, but it displaces someone else that’s truly handicapped.

In summary, there is no similarity between traditional-marriage and gay-marriage at the gold-standard level.  There is no comparison between a gay couple and biological parents that bear the risks and responsibilities of child-birth. If the law treats them equally, it produces an inequality for the majority of the outcomes in a traditional-marriage.  

Silver Standard for Marriage

Gay-marriage advocates minimize the importance of the gold-standard to focus on the weaker examples of traditional marriage, pointing out that some couples get married when they are not capable of having children and some don’t ever intend to have children when they marry.  Social statistics show that only 1/3 of all childless marriages last 10 years or more. This is not the intended outcome of marriage though "childless marriage" is the foundation-axiom for the gay-marriage argument.

As many of us find out in marriage – the marriage bond grows where you’ll want children regardless of your intentions in the beginning.  It’s just the way nature works. In reality nobody knows for sure when the capacity to procreate ends for one or both partners in a traditional-marriage.  There are couples that have children whether they intended to or not and there are couples that have children that thought they could not.  

To justify the gay-marriage argument of childless marriages, one must have the foreknowledge of God -- knowing which couples won't have children before they marry.  Everybody knows that gay-partners can't have children between themselves though many are fully capable of producing children in the biological way.  The only problem is that biology doesn't work for them.

Menopause typically ends childbearing for women but marital-infidelity by a male-spouse can cause unplanned-pregnancies.  This is not the intended consequence of marriage either but the outcome affects both parties in marriage.  On the other-hand gays won’t become pregnant from infidelity unless it’s with the opposite-sex -- thus weakening their claim to a strongly held gay-identity and weakening their cause in the gay-marriage debate.  Hence gay marriage doesn't relate to the silver-standard.

Bronze Standard

But let’s not forget about the people that divorce and remarry – and gay-marriage could be the same thing.  Well maybe not – because typically they can still have children according to the gold or silver standard.  Divorced people from traditional-marriages could remarry as a gay-couple with children, but we can’t compare them without jeopardizing their claim of an immutable gay-identity. 

Moral Conscience

People in the marriage-culture typically get married for the sake of being morally-responsible to their partner and to society rather than living in co-habitation which is an undesirable outcome to society. The reasoning is based on their religious-convictions and moral-conscience, and it applies the same whether they end up with children or not.

Government recognizes these strongly-felt-convictions and the benefits of traditional-marriage to society -- therefore preachers are licensed with the legal-capacity to marry couples.  

Moral conscience doesn't fit for gay-marriage and no equality  is found here.  No benefits for society can be shown.

Conclusion

After diligently searching for marriage-equivalence it can’t be found even at the extreme-ranges of traditional-marriage, hence traditional-marriage and gay-marriage are unequal across-the-board.  There’s really no way to make them equal.  

Everyone should have equal-rights when those rights can be applied in the same way, but equal-protection-under-the-law is irrelevant to unions that are fundamentally unequal.  

Gay-marriage is found to have no equal -- the comparison is incomparable and the new equality is the new inequality at the expense of traditional-marriage.  Some states have already taken the irrevocable-step by redefining marriage.  Someday they’ll probably regret their hasty decisions.

Christians Beware of Forums

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

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?

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

.

.

.

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