Religion & Culture

“So, while we believe that the same religion may inform a variety of cultures, we may ask whether any culture could come into being, or maintain itself, without a religious basis. We may go further and ask whether what we call the culture, and the religion of a people are not different aspects of the same thing: the culture being, essentially, the incarnation (so to speak) of the religion of a people.”

~T.S. Elliot, CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE, p.101

“In the case of kinists, the issue is not social structure, the issue is “What determines and defines a culture? Genes or faith?” As Henry Van Til demonstrated in his book, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, culture is entirely defined by religion, and this is the only Biblical conclusion we can make about a culture. No other factor defines a culture, whether genetics (racism/kinism), environment, or economic conditions (Marxism).

Mr. Bojidar Marinov
Former Communist and Bulgarian

1.) Marinov raises a false dichotomy as social structure is always related to culture. The issue for Kinists is social structure precisely because the issue is culture.

2.) Marinov reveals his odd combination of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism in this quote. By denying who God has created us to be in our generations has anything to do with culture is to curse the reality that God created us body and soul. Marinov wants to insist that faith can be abstracted from the person who has faith, and further that said person likewise can be abstracted from his people. It is true that culture is religion externalized but it is the religion of a real live person who belongs to a real live people. Marinov’s gnostic tendencies is seen in the fact that he wants a culture driven by a religion that isn’t connected to a person who isn’t connected to a people group. Genetics does not independently create culture but it contributes to the creation of culture inasmuch as the religion externalized that creates culture is a product of a people’s faith. That this is true is painfully obvious. Not all Christian cultures throughout history have been exactly the same. Not all Christian cultures that have existed in different places have been exactly the same. What accounts for the differences in these differing Christian culture in time and place? One difference that accounts for these differences is genetics. God has created different people groups to be different and those differences expressed themselves in the differing Christian cultures that different people groups built. They all held a like Christian faith and were all counted as the people of God but the differences in the way God created different people groups, in their generations, accounts for the differences that demonstrated themselves in the Christian cultures that were uniquely built. To not recognize this and to expect that all Christians will build the same cultures is nothing but gnosticism. It is to deny the physicality of whom God created us to be in favor of some abstracted spiritual category called “religion,” as that abstracted spiritual category is thought by seemingly non-corporeal persons and peoples.

My insistence that distinctions exist between people’s (genetics) is hardly new with me. It has been a common staple of Christianity before people like Marinov have tried to reinterpret Christianity through a Marxist grid. Consider the Princeton Luminary, Charles Hodge

[The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.

Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3

And again from Hodge,

It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character. . . . [A]dmitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.

-Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 5, Section 6 (1872–73)

And here is Abraham Kuyper on the same matter,

The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.

-Common Grace

Is Mr. Marinov willing to label Charles Hodge and Abraham Kuyper “racist” merely because they held that genes had something (not everything) to do with culture?

3.) To suggest that the admission that genetics has an impact and so is a contributor to culture is racist is nothing but Marxist thinking. It was Marx and Marxists who have always insisted that the grand goal of social structure is Uniformity. If the differences of men, can not at least in part, be explained by who God has created us to be then the consequence of such thinking is that when all men become Christian then Nations will cease to exist. After all, if all that explains culture is religion externalized abstracted from the peoples who are externalizing that religion then when all share the same religion then all idea of peoples or Nationalities will disappear. Voila … we have arrived at John Lenon’s “Imagine.”

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…

What Marinov is offering as Christianity is a type of thinking perfectly consistent with what Frederick Engels opted for in his Communism.

”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

4.) Is it really “racist” to say that since God recognizes distinctions we should likewise? To recognize distinctions between a Greyhound and a Schnauzer is not to argue for Supremacy for either Greyhound or Schnauzer. It is merely to recognize that distinctions exist.

5.) Mr. Marinov complaint against Kinists is vitiated by the fact that a long known synonym for Culture is “Folkway.” So if we use this synonym in Dr. Henry Van Til’s definition what we get is “Folkways is religion externalized.” Obviously one can not have the externalization apart from the ways of the Folk.

Mr. Marinov’s work is reductionistic to a fault. One simply cannot have a religion to be externalized without a people doing the externalizing. One can’t have religion without people and you can’t have people without the common ties of blood, family, tribe, ethnicity, and race. To try to separate religion from people is madness.

Mr. Marinov’s theology is a throwback to his former Communist days while at the same time combined with some kind of Gnosticism. Some might contend that Mr. Marinov apparently has not yet put off the thinking in which he was originally trained. I don’t know about that. My plea is simply that Christians would see the shallowness of his arguments despite Mr. Marinov’s ability to blow impressive Marx like smoke.

Marinov’s Mistakes On Immigration

Recently, a social media site found former Communist and Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov commenting on a Dr. Joel McDurmon thread. He is addressing a learned and mature Christian with whom he disagrees on the issue of immigration. I place it here in order to demonstrate Mr. Marinov’s dissembling and exaggeration techniques. I place the quote first followed by analysis.

Mr. Marinov wrote,

“Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm show you are out of arguments. Like I said, I don’t care for Sowell, Woods, or Hoppe; their thinking is not Biblical and therefore is schizophrenic and inconsistent where moral issues are involved. And like I said, Woods is not even following von Mises’s methodological individualism in his essay but speaks as a collectivist. And like I said, Rushdoony didn’t mention any immigration restrictions in the Law of God, and what he criticized was not free movement of individuals but forced movement by the state. If you have to say anything on my arguments, do it. If you are just going to babble in desperation, hoping to prove something about yourself, you are only exposing yourself in a not very favorable light. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t give the Barbary pirates work permits because “work permits” didn’t exist then as a policy of the Federal government. Unlike you, these men had at least some Biblical worldview, and they were not so eager to accept tyranny as you are.”

Mr. Marinov has a bad habit of exaggeration, pejorative, and creative dissembling. In this brief quote we see this in the following,

1.) Earlier Marinov complained about certain people that his target was quoting as not being Christians and yet here he seems to see the non-Christian Ludwig Von Mises as an authority to be cited. Note a few of the quotes from the Von Mises that Marinov takes as some kind of authority. I post these quotes here because Christians like Marinov are redefining Christianity in the direction of Misean Christianity with its “von Mises-ian methodological individualism. In point of fact it is my conviction that the whole institutionally organized Theonomy and Reconstruction movement has been co-opted by Misean Libertarianism. Below is some of what Mises thought of Christianity.

Mises says that the gospel of Jesus was

‘utterly negative.’ “He [Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties. The disciple shall not merely be indifferent to supporting himself, shall not merely refrain from work and dispossess himself of all goods, but he shall hate ‘father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life’ . . . His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration, enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything must be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . . . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus’ teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is mere negation.”

Theonomic Christians must start asking themselves if they want to rely on sources like institutional Theonomic-Reconstruction organizations given the fact that these organization are increasingly selling out Reconstruction thought to Libertarianism.

As Mises saw it, since Jesus simply repudiated all values of this life. Mises again on Christianity,

“His (Jesus) teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” In another place he said: “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come.”

Marinov’s Libertarianism, with its “Methodological individualism” is throwing off the heritage of R. J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony, embraced Libertarianism in light of Theonomy but todays putative followers of Rushdoony are embracing theonomy in light of Libertarianism.

2.) Marinov fails to realize that current immigration patterns are indeed being, “forced by the state.”
Mr. Marinov doesn’t seem to realize that our current immigration patterns, and so problems, have been NWO policy for some time.

This book spends a little time telling that story,

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-In-Europe-Immigration/dp/0307276759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414013297&sr=8-1&keywords=Christopher+Caldwell

The Humanist Governments of the West have, since WW II, been implementing policy that is designed to remake the West into a non Christian reality. Mr. Marinov is just wrong to suggest that our immigration problems are not the cause of Western Christ hating governments.

3.) Mr. Marinov notes that “Jefferson didn’t give work permits because they didn’t exist.” Marinov almost seems to suggest that if work permits had existed circa 1800 Jefferson might well have given the Barbary Pirates work permits instead of canon fire.

4.) Jefferson — the man who excised all of the miraculous accounts from the famous “Jefferson Bible” — is thought by Mr. Marinov to have had more of a Biblical Worldview then the learned and Christian man he is targeting with verbal explosions.

5.) Elsewhere Mr. Marinov, in the same dialog, wrote,

“For all your quoting of Rushdoony, you should have been aware that Rushdoony specifically separates between those two in his commentary on the naturalization laws of Deuteronomy, and specifically adds: “These are NOT immigration laws.” Another testimony that you either can’t read, or you read selectively and dishonestly.”

“Rushdoony was emphatic that the Law of God doesn’t contain immigration restrictions and therefore the civil government is not allowed to impose such restrictions.”

This is a rather bold claim by Mr. Marinov, and as it turns out, consistent with Mr. Marinov’s debating technique is also a patently dishonest claim as can be seen by what Rushdoony wrote on Dt. 23.

“Immigration laws protect a nation by state discrimination, which can be good or bad, whereas these laws established the discrimination on a family level.”

So, we see that as Rushdoony interpreted Deut 23, those specific laws mentioned concerned the family and NOT national immigration policy. Notice also what Rushdoony says, “Immigration laws are for the protection of a nation” and they can be “good or bad.” We see then that Marinov was in error in his report.

6.) More errant commentary by Mr. Marinov on Immigration

Marinov wrote,

“The US Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to control immigration.”

Yet the Constitution disagrees with Mr. Marinov’s “wisdom.”

Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

Article 1, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”

The implication clearly here is that Congress *could* prohibit the migration of said persons after 1808, which it of course did.

Also this from Constitutional scholar William Rawle,

“If war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.”

—William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” Chapter 9

Mr. Marinov repeatedly has revealed himself as a person whose declarative statements of “fact,” and whose citation of sources needs to be carefully checked.

Machen Contra R2K … Christianity Opposes False Systems At A Thousand Points

“What has Christianity to do with education: What is there about Christianity which makes it necessary that there should be Christian schools? Very little, some people say. Christianity, they say, is a life, a temper of soul, not a doctrine or a system of truth; it can provide its sweet aroma, therefore, for any system which secular education may provide; its function is merely to evaluate whatever may be presented to it by the school of thought dominant at any particular time. This view of the Christian religion…is radically false. Christianity is, indeed, a way of life; but it is a way of life founded upon a system of truth. That system of truth is of the most comprehensive kind; it clashes with opposing systems at a thousand points. The Christian life cannot be lived on the basis of anti-Christian thought. Hence the necessity of the Christian school” (142,143).

“When we contemplate a type of Protestant orthodoxy that is content to take forlorn little shreds of Christian truth and tag them here and there upon a fundamentally anti-Christian or non-Christian education…[this is] humiliating to Protestantism” (143).

“Christianity should have an educational system of its own…Thus and thus only will the darkness of ignorance be dispelled and the light of Christian truth be spread abroad in the land” (144).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State, edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Machen was clearly a Christian social activist as this quote bears out. He saw that the Christian faith opposed pagan belief system at a thousand points. He understood that one of those points of contest was education. Today, other Reformed Church leaders are disagreeing with Machen on the totalistic nature of the contest between Christian thought and pagan thought. For example, recently Dr. G. D. Hart wrote,

“A Christian social activist is just as scary as a secular one. Thinking that Christians running things is better than non-Christians running those same things is frankly dishonest.”

What is humorous about this quote is that,

1.) Darryl is saying that Machen, as a social activist, was just as scary as Margaret Sanger as a social activist.

2.) Darryl, by implicitly insisting that Christians shouldn’t be social activists is doing his best impersonation of a social activist against Christian social activists.

Note that Machen, in the last quote provided, insists that Christianity should have its own educational system. Of course, such an idea is anathema to R2K, since for R2K, it is not possible for Education to be Christian since Education exists in the common realm. R2K may well refuse to ordain a modern day Machen for this kind of conviction that insists that Christian children should be educated with a distinctly Christian Education.

American Vision Joel McDurmon Supports Familialism

“The U.S. Constitution returned to the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of “kith and kin.” The word “King” is related to the English “kin” which has an ethnic reference. “Kith and kin” means “same country and family.” Without this quality among a leader, there cannot be any true loyalty to the people. And while this sounds like a side matter, it is not: a ruler who identifies with the people almost as a family will fight to defend them and their liberties. A ruler, however, without that loyalty will more likely be less interested in defense. It’s the difference which Jesus taught between the shepherd and the hireling.”

Joel McDurmon
Famous Alienist

http://americanvision.org/5402/preventing-the-warfare-state-the-biblical-laws-for-kings/

I’m glad to see Joel come around on this issue. I hope he will now repudiate massive illegal immigration which works to undo a people who desire to have leaders according to their kin.

The Tactics and Abnormality of Sodomy

Introduction

Homosexual as a word was coined in order to deflect attention from the word of the time that was used, which was “sodomite.” The advocates of sodomy realized that they needed to move from the verb “sodomy,” which drew attention to the act to a noun like “Homosexual,” and later, “gay” which moved ones attention from the act itself to the identity of the person.

So, the word “Homosexual” was latched upon to divert attention away from the dirtiness of the act. Eventually “homosexual” had to give way to “gay” for the same reason that the word “sodomite” gave way to the word “Homosexual.” Now even the word “gay” has become dirty and so other terms are being sought out.

Notice here the language. New worldviews can be spotted by the way the language is changed or manipulated.

I.) Note that there is five stages by which a culture can be forced to accept deviance

a.) Tolerance of deviance

Here what is pushed is the virtue of tolerance. We might not approve of something ourselves but we are “big enough” to allow deviants in our midst. The purpose of tolerance is almost always to serve as means by which to buy time until that which is being tolerated is strong enough to force the toleristas to the next stage.

One way that a deviant behavior is normalized is by talking about it ad-nauseum. The advocates of deviance bring it up without fail. In the case of sodomy, the love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut the hell up.

This reminds of Pope’s poetry,

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Alexander Pope

b.) Acceptance of deviance

In this stage the toleristas not only ask for toleration but also of acceptance. This is the demand to come out of the closet and be accepted in families, churches, employment, etc. This is the stage where the societal taboo of the behavior is removed so that the deviance is seen as odd but not repulsive.

A great means to accomplish this is the usage of the sentimental story. Sentimentalism is told in order to demonstrate how mean and cold hearted are those who can’t be sympathetic to those who want to normalize sodomy.

There is seldom appreciation for how the mainlining of behavior that is associated with disease, drastically reduced mortality rates, and Man boy love is hateful towards people.

c.) Celebration of deviance

“Gay” parades anyone?

Rainbow ribbon day

d.) forced embracing of deviance

Those who once asked to be tolerated in their perversity are now told that if they will not embrace the deviant as normal they will not be tolerated themselves. Those deviants once in the closet, have gone from tolerated to being those who are shoving those who object into the closet. Having gained the ascendancy they will not tolerate those who object to the destructive character of their behavior.

e.) Punishment for those who oppose deviance.

Economic opportunities are cut off from those who object. Finally, “Hate laws” are passed. The sodomites have come out of the closet and the Christians are the ones pushed into the closet.

II.) The Alternative to Marriage?

A.) The New Definition of Marriage

According to Lawyer Ted Olson, the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times that “marriage is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By SCOTUS’s own definition twin brothers could marry each other since twin brothers could love one another and desire privacy, association, liberty and being with the person thy love etc. Indeed, by SCOTUS’ definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover since even in that situation “marriage would be a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.” Indeed, by SCOTUS’s own definition of Marriage Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

B.) The New Definition of Marriage — By What Standard?

We would also ask the SCOTUS, “By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty?” SCOTUS must answer the basis of authority by which they limit marriage the way that they do.

What we are seeing now is the replacing of the previous Transcendent Authority for the definition of marriage to the new standard of consensuality among two or more people who have secured the power of the State to support their perversity.

Unelected judges, all over the nation, by legalizing sodomite marriage, in essence, have changed the definition of marriage merely according to their fiat word. They are attempting to legislate reality from the Bench. This is social engineering at its best. Human beings are treated as malleable and can be changed in any way the God State desires to change them.

We really should not be too surprised at this. Any people who allowed their judges to redefine life (Roe vs. Wade) were eventually likewise going to seek to redefine all of reality including marriage.

Via this Judicial malfeasance, unelected Judges have sent “the public a message from the God-State” that natural and traditional families are no different or unique than any other human arrangement and that the family as defined from a Transcendent authority, are not to be preferred over and above disordered non-families. Further, this criminal malfeasance by Judicial diktat has pronounced that any consensual relationship between two or more people, regardless of gender, based on the way those people feel about one another, ought to be called “marriage.” The God State, acting in a supremely religious capacity, has declared war upon and against the legislative authority of nature and nature’s God.

Criminal Judges have pushed aside the complementarity of men and women in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in a transcendent Authority, biology and human nature, and if there is no transcendent Authority by which to objectively define and identify marriage then marriage is open to any immanent authority’s definition of marriage as long as that immanent authority has the power of the Tyrant State behind it to forcefully implement it’s new subjective fiat definition of marriage.

In short the State can no more redefine marriage, sex, and family, any more then it can turn the moon into Green cheese. All because the Civil realm calls disorder, sin, and perversity, “order,” “righteousness,” and “normalcy” that does not make it so.

C.) Marriage and Children

There was a time when it was understood that one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose of Marriage, was the fostering, bearing, and raising of children. Here is the language from one Church’s reading for Marriage,

“Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.”

The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is now longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.

Such an attitude reduces marriage to one of convenience.

Now, there is no doubt that the children of heterosexual marriage have longed suffered from the instability of impermanent marriages. The ironic thing here is that it is the same worldview that weakened heterosexual marriages is now the worldview that is offering sodomite coupling as being normal for children.

However, all statistics indicate that sodomite and lesbian marriages are famously unstable.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[1]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[2]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[3]

As such, just as our social order, worked unto the destroying of children’s lives via the liberalization of Divorce laws in the 60’s-70’s so it is once again seeking to cause judicially innocent children to suffer its folly by creating sodomite families.

It should be noted here that the destruction of the family serves the interest of the God state. The God state is more secure the less competition it has. Strong family structure is a threat to the God state because it offers a different location for loyalty other than the God state. As such the God state has an interest in working to create weak family structures.

It would not be difficult to conclude given the trajectory of family law and tax law over the last 50 years that the goal of the law has been to destroy the traditional family. If one looks at the early history of Marxist Russia one can see parallels between the way they initially deconstructed family and the way we are currently deconstructing family.

State sanctioned Sodomite buggery (called “marriage”) is but another brick in that wall of destroying the notion of the Christian family. Sodomite marriage is not about creating more family. Sodomite marriage is about destroying the historic family.

Conclusion

Sodomy is an attack on

A.) The emotional and psychic integrated individual

Believe it or not the American Psychiatric association still labels Homosexuality as disordered. The LGBT individual is not right mentally. The very fact that they have the position on LGBT issues they have is proof that they are not well integrated in their character and personality.

B.) The Family

C.) The Nation

Most Importantly… GOD

We have not said much in this lecture about the centrality of God in all this. We have not done so because we don’t want people to think that somehow this is only an issue that religious people should be concerned about. However, at the end of the day this debate is all about what kind of God will we, as a people bow before? Will we bow before the Tyrant God state which is trying to create reality for us by its fiat legislation and Judicial decision or will we be a people who bow before the God of the Bible who spoke creation and reality into existence by His divine Word.

This debate is a debate between worldviews. Will Man be sovereign or will God be sovereign. Will man dictate reality by his fiat word or will God dictate reality by his fiat word. Will we bow to what God has done by deciding to give Eve to Adam for procreation or will we insist that we no better than God when we match people with the same reproductive organs in a complete redefinition of marriage.

1. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

2. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

3. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

Page 1 of 33212345»102030...Last »