Apologetics Into The Void

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The chief practical dilemma I face is having to choose between compromising on the truth or speaking the truth and living with the consequences. Of course, it would be easier to compromise and be toasted and haled by all and that is what the part of me wants which would think only of self. So, I frequently get in situations at Church, family, or in meetings where it is increasingly being assumed that sodomy is just another life-style choice, and I am faced with the dilemma of not speaking and so being accepted as opposed to speaking out and living with the contempt of the zeitgeist. In St. Paul’s words the dilemma is whether to be conformed to the world or to be transformed by the renewing of my mind.

So, to put it another way I have the dilemma of submitting to the clear teaching of Scripture or choosing to be a coward instead so I can be accepted by elite opinion makers.

The survey had this to say about language.

A Note on Language:

A variety of terms are currently used to describe sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of these terms carry different overtones for different people, making it hard to find any neutral yet respectful language. In this survey we will use the following terms, which are intended to be understood in a neutral way, as outlined below:

gay – attracted to the same sex, usually referring to males, though it may also be an umbrella term for same-sex attracted people. Here the word is intended to refer to orientation only; it does not say anything about a person’s sexual behavior
lesbian – attracted to the same sex, referring to females
bisexual – attracted to both male and female persons
same-sex attracted – attracted to the same sex
homosexual – attracted to the same sex
straight/heterosexual – attracted to the opposite sex
sexual minority – persons who do not identify as heterosexual*
queer – a formerly derogatory term that has been reclaimed as a a self-affirming umbrella term by sexual and gender minority persons

* Though the term sexual minority may include aspects of gender identity, this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation

1.) When Jesus called out the Pharisees as a brood of vipers and other strong language was he using sinful language that was not neutral or respectful? I have no problem with seeking to be sensitive to people’s feelings unless they are seeking to sell themselves as poor victims who’s abnormal behavior needs to be accepted by all in Society.

2.) There is no such thing as neutral language. One way the sodomite community has advanced its agenda is by stealing the language. “Sodomy,” as a word was seen as a descriptor that could never lead to the behavior being accepted was changed to “homosexual” and then to “gay,” and with each change the goal was to make the behavior seem more benign in keeping with the word used. Those in the Queer community understood that language is never neutral and so they advanced new words that served their cause of getting sodomy accepted.

3.) The idea of finding neutral words of course presupposes that the Queer issue is an open question as to its moral probity. This stance of neutrality already advances an agenda to remove the current language that explicitly speaks of it as wrong in its behavioral expression.

4.) If this survey is mainly focused on matters relating to sexual orientation then why does so much of it deal with attending Queer commitment or “wedding” ceremonies? Usually, commitment and ritual ceremonies called weddings implies consummation and so behavior and not merely orientation.

Please answer the following questions

Yes No

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Please answer the following questions Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you personally know anyone in your family or friend circle who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual?

Do you have regular interactions with sexual minority persons in your workplace or non-Church community?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever been invited to a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

Have you ever attended a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding?

If invited, would you attend a same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding (assuming you were able to go)?

With respect to same-sex commitment/marriage ceremonies, it is my opinion that:

Church members/attenders should be free to attend them
Church elders and deacons should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to attend them
Pastors should be free to officiate at them

It is possible, though I can’t know for sure, that someone might read the result of this type of survey and conclude that the people who don’t know Queers aren’t really qualified to have opinions on the whole issue. Also, the survey could be easily used to show that people who do know Queers are much more accepting of Queer behavior and that the answer to rejecting Queer behavior is just getting to know a few more Queers.

Asking the questions about attending Ceremonies, once again, presupposes that the behavior of people is more important then the text of Scripture. Does it really matter how many respondents attended Ceremonies if the Scripture speak clearly against Queer Nation? Do we now come to truth by counting noses?

If we are going to have a conversation on sodomy and Queer marriage why doesn’t someone put forth the pro Queer argument from Scripture? How and where does Scripture teach God’s positive approval on Queer Nation? Where does Scripture give positive approbation to Queer marriage? Perhaps someone can show how the Church has been wrong for 2000 years in its interpretation of sodomy as being sin?

And just for the sake of clarity, I do understand there is a distinction between orientation and behavior. I quite agree that the Church should work with people with besetting sins as long as there is no disposition to claim that the problem of besetting sins is solved by no longer considering besetting sins as sins.

From The Lifting Of Taboo To The Compulsory Requirement That Previous Taboos Be Embraced

The social – sexual revolution of the 60’s promised liberation but has, instead, delivered chaos. The 60’s sexual revolution that taught us, through song, that “if you can’t be with the one you love, honey love the one your with” yielded sexual chaos.

In the multitude of Rock -n- Roll songs, we were promised the liberated Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by bedding his wife)

Over the course of time sexual chaos begat family chaos as all that free sex led to mass confusion for families. Family chaos in turn begat social chaos as nobody was quite sure just what address they were supposed to be sleeping at every night. Social chaos begat economic chaos as incomes were halved as the income providing for one home was now required to support two homes thanks to divorce and support payments. Economic chaos in turn begat political chaos, and the result of all this chaos has been dysfunctional families, murdered and bereft children, and a soaring STD rate. Wasn’t the Sexual Revolution Grand?

Now that the chickens are coming home to their roost, and so the consequences are now being seen of the havoc from all these policies over the course of years, the pagan left, which gave us these policies, doesn’t want to be held uniquely responsible for these policies. So, they have gone from the policy of lifting the Taboos to the policy of making the previous Taboos now compulsorily accepted behavior by the citizenry. And so, for example, what started as lifting Taboo laws so that sodomy was approved (Lawrence vs. Texas) we have now gone to implementing laws where the Florist, the Baker, and Photograph taker are being compulsorily required to approve of heretofore deviant behavior upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. Likewise we have gone from Connecticut vs. Griswold (1965) where the pagan left Supreme court lifted the taboos of birth control to the Hobby Lobby case where we are on the cusp of of the pagan left Supreme court compulsorily requiring companies to provide birth control abortifacients upon pain of inflicted legal penalty. The attitude seems to be, “you’re going to be liberated whether you want it or not Damn’it.”

Of course one advantage of this newly required compulsory behavior is that the Left won’t be blamed for any of the abysmal policy that led to chaos but can say instead, “well, that is just the way things are. Everybody wants it.” By making the acceptance of the behavior compulsory the pagan left implicates everyone and everyone is to blame and not just uniquely the left. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to force everyone to share in your guilt?

And so we have come to a place where the new sacred canopy of paganism is one where we are all being forced to take shelter under. Anybody opting out of our new pagan sacred canopy will not be tolerated. Such people will need to go to re-education camps or psychiatry wards in order to get their mind right.

Answering A Push Poll

Recently, a friend of mine who is a Pastor in New England went to a weekly community Pastor’s meeting and he was polled as to some of his opinions regarding sodomy. He sent me a copy of the poll and I’ve answered only a few of the questions here. It was quickly clear that this poll is what is known in the political activist business as a “push poll.” A push poll is an opinion poll whose real purpose is to influence people’s opinions rather than to collect information about them. Push polls often rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on a subject. Push polls have as their purpose to confirm the desired opinion held by those conducting the poll and the questions are often either biased or indefinite by the way they are phrased, thus allowing their interpretation to be spun as favorable to the pollsters doing the polling. In this push poll questions were worded to make the position of acceptance of sodomy more rational and compassionate. The traditional position which opposes sodomy appeared unreasonable and rigorous. In push polls the phrasing of the language is everything.

Dear Pastor,

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The largest practical dilemma I face is the necessity to repeatedly show from Scripture that sodomy is sin. However, because sodomy and sodomite marriage is being pushed on us in culture and in the Church in every quarter and because the Church is constantly being bombarded with the message that, “to oppose sodomy and speak against sodomy is hateful” it makes it difficult, as a Pastor, to give the Biblical message that it is the most loving thing in the world to speak out against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

So the chief dilemma I have, as a Pastor, is to help congregants hold on to the idea that sodomy and unrepentant sodomite “sex” and sodomite marriage is an offensive sin before God almighty and is a sure sign of God’s judgment against a people for their rebelling against Him. I have the dilemma that fewer and fewer people believe that sodomy and sodomite marriage is the consequence of God “turning them over (Romans 1).”

Another dilemma I have is how “God’s love” is used as a blanket phrase to somehow excuse all sins but no less the sin of sodomy and sodomite marriage. It’s as if the idea of God’s love is interpreted to be the equivalent of the love of a whore or a gigolo.

Finally, another dilemma that crops up frequently is the idea of how as Christians we are not to Judge therefore we can’t judge against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

Pastor,

What do you see as the most pressing questions for your congregation in regards to same-sex attracted people and/or same-sex marriage?

The congregation I serve, unknown possible exceptions notwithstanding, have no pressing questions. They pretty much uniformly realize that sodomy and sodomite marriage is sin and that God can forgive this sin and that the Church must be declaiming against this cultural sin du-jour, while tenderly shepherding former sodomites who repent and join themselves to Christ’s Church.

Pastor,

What are your greatest fears, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

I have no fears.

Here are my concerns.

1.) I am concerned that the sodomite agenda is about destroying heterosexual marriage. See the links below that discuss this.

see — http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/
see — http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/

2.) People will begin to believe sodomite marriage is possible. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then being an accomplished rider of a two wheeled unicycle can be accomplished. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then the drawing of a square circle. Sodomite marriage is not possible given the very definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Are we forgetting the Scripture by even talking about the possibility that sane Christians can subscribe to “sodomite marriage?” Will we advocate next that Christians subscribe to the reality of Fairies and Goblins?

3.) I am greatly concerned that the Church is going to rebel against God on this matter by normalizing sodomy and sodomite marriage and so diminish His glory among men and incur His wrath.

4.) I am greatly concerned that the souls of sodomites, that are precious to God, will end up being confirmed in their sin and be told that God loves them “just the way they are,” in their unrepentant sodomite behavior. I am concerned over how hateful and cruel any action that “normalizes” sodomy or sodomite marriage would be, to yet unrepentant, practicing sodomites.

5.) I am greatly concerned that humanistic sociology and psychology will be used to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture that forbids sodomite behavior. I am concerned that passages like Romans 1, I Corinthians 9, and Galatians 5 will be reinterpreted via a LGBT sacred canopy.

What are your greatest hopes, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

My greatest hope is that sodomite marriage will be seen as an absurdity and will be recognized as always characteristic of a social order about to flame out. My greatest hope includes that men and women will be set free by the Lord Christ to repent of their sins, whatever those sins might be.

Resources I recommend,

Homosexuality; A Biblical View — Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Redeeming the Rainbow — Scott Lively

From The Mailbag — Will We See Things Turned Around?

Dear Pastor,

Can Obama-care and the other grave social ills of this country be turned around?

Miesha

Dear Miesha,

I’d love to say “yes” all this can be turned around. But I honestly don’t believe that it will be in our lifetimes BECAUSE the problem isn’t socialized medicine or other social ills. Those are only symptoms of a far greater problem. The problem is that man and women have turned away from Christ and are raising their middle finger to the God over all.

You see, men and women who will not own their sin and turn to the Lord Christ, and so submit to Biblical thinking are men and women who will create new gods in order to replace the God of the bible and His Christ. Historically speaking, the new god ends up being the State. Men begin to think that “in the State, we live, and move, and have our being,” and so contrive womb to the tomb Marxist States. In doing so they believe that they can lock the God of the Bible out of His creation. However, paraphrasing Kipling here, when men seek to lock God out, “the God of the copybook Headings with Terror and Slaughter returns,” or as the Bible puts it, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.”

No Christian looks to the State as God and further, Christians, find such Statist thinking to be blasphemous.

So … Obama-care and other social ills are horrid beyond naming but the removal of our social ills, at this point, will only happen as the men of the West quit with their Treason against the God of the Bible and His Lord Christ.

And as burdened as I am about it, I don’t see Reformation and Revival anytime in the near future in the West, though I remain imbued with great hope that all of this is serving the one day arrival of Reformation somewhere in the World.

And so we must live with Obama-care and the other current social ills as God’s just judgment against our sin against Him.

And yet as Christians we can never bow to the State gods of this age. To do so would be a violation of the #1 commandment.

If men will not bow to Christ and repent of their sins then men will build Marxist God States whereby the State becomes God. The cure for socialized Obama-care and all other social ills is ultimately only found in people looking for the forgiveness of their sin of attempted Deicide that can only come from Christ and then having been regenerated submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life.

The Cross would solve it all Miesha. Without the Cross nothing is solved.

With Obama-Care The State Is Making A Claim Of Ownership Over The Citizenry

There is a State
It is alive
In it we live
And we survive

The fiat State
Determines Man
It is our God
The great I AM
(The great I AM)

The New Version of the Old Hymn
Our God, He Is Alive

All insurance is a claim of ownership. People who own goods insure those owned goods to protect their investment.

For example, minimum car coverage is required to insure OTHERS against your negligence. But minimum insurance does not require you to cover the cost of fixing your own car in case of an accident. As the owner you can determine that yourself. This requirement of minimum car coverage is within the Constitutional bounds of government since it requires us to protect others from our own dangerous (read driving) actions. In the same way a person is responsible for visitors hurt on their property by negligence to safety. (Research Biblical law of building a parapet on your roof).

If you buy a car on a loan and so have to make payments, the true owner (the company you make payments to) requires you to have full coverage because they own the car, not you. They have a right to insure their investment and so in owning the car they have the right to force you to pay for Insurance. Their requiring you to have insurance is a proclamation that they own the vehicle.

Home owners insurance protects a persons investment in their home, property or personal belongings. Insurance on the home is a claim of ownership on the home by you as the individual who owns the home.

Similarly, Life insurance protects a person (specifically their posterity) from the loss of life. So when I have life insurance it is to protect my family or my business or my children’s future, etc.. Taking out a life insurance policy on myself reflects that I own my life.

Similarly, Mortgage insurance protects the mortgage company’s investment in case of your failure to pay a mortgage. The Mortgage company owns the house and their requirement that the loan-ee purchase mortgage insurance is a claim of ownership by the Mortgage company.

Health insurance protects you, your future health, and your future earnings potential. If you owned your own health you could determine yourself whether or not to purchase health insurance and the unforced private purchasing of health insurance would indicate that you do own yourself.

All these insurances protect the owner of the investment. The owner decides whether or not to have insurance. The cost of insurance is paid by the owner. And the owner is the one guaranteed payment in case of loss.

When anyone demands for us, upon pain of penalty, to have health insurance they are claiming a right of ownership over us and over our income. I am not opting to pay insurance – I am being forced to purchase insurance by the entity (The FEDS) who considers itself my owner or I pay a penalty. If I buy a vehicle with a loan and don’t purchase full coverage auto insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the vehicle by the vehicle being reclaimed. If I buy a house with a loan and don’t purchase mortgage insurance I will be penalized by the owner of the house, by the house being foreclosed on. And now, if I don’t purchase health insurance I am, in the same way, being penalized by having to pay a tax for not purchasing health insurance, by the entity who insists it is my owner, and this demand is being made by the entity (the State) who has made a claim to owning my health (and by extension myself) by demanding that I have health insurance to begin with.

Now this claim of ownership by the State over the citizenry, via the requirement of health insurance, is made doubly clear when we realize the State will be the one who determines who will and will not be allowed to have certain medical procedures. This is especially so when we consider the death panels that are written into the Obama-care legislation. The State, being the owner of the citizenry, will determine who live and who dies by means of determine who receives certain medical care and who does not.

The government is essentially playing the mobster enforcer who makes us pay to guarantee our safety. The State, by requiring health insurance, is communicating that they are the ones who own us.

In all this the State is claiming to be that entity in which we live, and move and have our being. In all this the State is taking up the prerogative of God and claiming to be God walking on the Earth. In all this we are being required to find our identity in the State.

Hat Tip — Jeramiah Townsend, Ed Waverly