Tuesday, November 15, 2005

The Devastating Error of 'Hate Crimes' Law

Weeks ago, I wrote a blogpost called Destroying Freedom of Conscience which included the uncanny similarities of the plot of a Christian end-times movie called Judgment with the current push for "hate crimes" laws to include "sexual orientation." In both instances, Christians are routinely called "haters" because of their Biblical worldview.

Please take a moment to read the former post. Then, read about what is now happening to a Christian pastor in Sweden. There is no doubt about where such "hate crimes" laws would lead. We don't need to speculate what will happen to Bible-believing and preaching pastors in the U.S. if a "hate crimes" law is passed here.

This email alert that I received from the Alliance Defense Fund president Alan Sears shows us the seriousness of what is at stake in this trial. We need to pray without ceasing for this pastor to be acquitted of these trumped up charges because of the devastating error done in Sweden with the passing of sexual orientation "hate crimes" speech law.

TO: Christine
FROM: Alan Sears, President

EXCLUSIVE FROM STOCKHOLM: PLEASE KEEP PRAYING FOR PASTOR GREEN…

Last week, I asked you to pray for Pastor Ake Green, the Swedish pastor facing imprisonment for preaching a sermon on Bible and homosexual behavior. Argued before the Swedish Supreme Court last Wednesday, November 9th, this case has serious ramifications worldwide.

As we told you, ADF sent chief counsel Benjamin Bull to Sweden to assist with last Wednesday’s trial. Unlike U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, this was an actual trial where Pastor Green was called to testify and grilled by the prosecuting attorney.

Ben reports:“Pastor Green’s trial before the Swedish Supreme Court was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen. It was surreal. The case should have been called Sweden v.The Bible. It was like a cross between George Orwell’s 1984 and a Stalin Soviet show trial. It was hard to believe that this was happening in a “developed” Western country. The entire case was televised live in Sweden and Parliament stopped to watch the proceedings.

The prosecutor made amazing arguments. He repeatedly mocked the Word of God. He ridiculed Biblical texts on homosexual behavior. The prosecutor asked Pastor Green several times what version of the Bible he was using. When Pastor Green politely replied that he used the New International Version, the prosecutor replied that Pastor Green was using a ‘bad translation’ and to ‘get a new Bible’ – one that does not question homosexual behavior. I sat in amazement as a government prosecutor was telling a minister to use another Bible translation. It was like a pastor telling the government that they need to use another law book. This was a case where the state was trying to dictate and reshape theology to fit its own agenda.

The prosecutor demanded that the court convict Pastor Green so he would be an example to deter other pastors from preaching what the Bible says about homosexual behavior. He did concede – quite amazingly – that it is still legal to publish such Bibles in Sweden (for now). The radical homosexual activists demand that Pastor Green be made an example as the first person to be prosecuted under the ‘hate speech’ law since it added 'sexual orientation' in 2003.

Throughout the trial, the justices were almost completely silent. Percy Bratt, Pastor Green’s defense attorney – whom we helped prepare the day before at a moot court – did a fabulous job. He also mentioned the brief that ADF had filed and another we funded on behalf of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council – and the chief justice acknowledged that he had read the brief and found it to be helpful.

All people of faith need to continue to be in prayer for this decisionas three out of four people in Sweden (per a poll) believe that Pastor Green should be sent to prison for simply preaching the uncensored Gospel. If Pastor Green is convicted, it will open the floodgates – and the same thing will be happening in the United States and Canada – sooner than you think. It will be a precedent in international law that pastors can be targeted and prosecuted for engaging in ‘hate crimes’ and we will soon see this cited in American courts. This case must be won and it must be defended.”

Please continue to be in prayer for Pastor Green and for this decision – which is expected in 3-4 weeks. As soon as we receive word of the outcome from the Swedish Supreme Court, we will let you know. Thank you for your prayers and your support, which have made it possible for ADF and its allies to play an important role in this extremely important case for the future of the Gospel.

Again for more information on the homosexual legal agenda, you can order our book, The Homosexual Agenda: The Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today

To read more about the ACLU and its efforts to use international law as precedent in U.S. courts, go to ACLU vs America.

For more information on the danger of international law in American courts, along with chilling statements from several of the six sitting Supreme Court justices, the ACLU, and other radical activists, go to ADF Issues.

43 comments:

Anna said...

Hi Christine -

This is just one more proof that the drive to silence Christians will not stop at the church doors.
This is where "hate crimes" legislation leads.

Blessings,
Anna

Christinewjc said...

I was reading a PDF article called "Startling Proofs of Prophecy" at the Cloud Ten Pictures Website and ran across this:

"Homosexuality on the Rise
Today, all over the globe, in nation after nation, laws and charters are being altered to protect the rights of homosexuals and lesbians. People are being told that we should accept these “alternative” lifestyles.

Christians who preach otherwise are
condemned as religious, narrow-minded bigots. Education curriculum on homosexuality and lesbianism has been slipped into many health care and sex education programs in the public school system. Reading materials like “Daddy’s Roommate” and
“Heather Has Two Mommies” are becoming a common part of school curriculum.

US Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton have invited homosexual and lesbian lobby groups to the White House, giving them recognition as just another special interest movement.

Jesus did say that the end times would be “as it was in the days of Lot.”78

The days of Lot, of course, were famous for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah where homosexuality was rampant.
77 Luke 17:26
78 Luke 17:28
Cloud Ten Pictures
http://www.cloudtenpictures.com

Susan Smith said...

Christine:

Do you know if there is a copy anywhere of EXACTLY what this pastor said in his sermon? I do not mean quotations from the Bible... I mean what he added in his own words? (ss)

Christinewjc said...

Hi Susan,

I will try to find out that information. So far, I haven't been able to locate any article that explains word for word what was said.

From the ADF email, we do know that the prosecutor is using the Bible version that pastor Greene used against him in the court room. And, the ADF lawyer who sat in on the proceedings said in his statement that the prosecutor shared the opinion that the pastor should get another version of the Bible; one that does not condemn homosexuality. Can you believe the gall of that prosecutor? This is an indirect way of stating that such a Bible (with verses that condemn homosexual behavior) should be eliminated.

I did find an excerpt from the ADF book mentioned in my blogpost. Read it and find out how persecution and verbal abuse by radical homosexual activists (to other readers, I am NOT CLAIMING ALL GAYS do this!) against people of Christian faith is already happening here in the U.S.!!

*******

Excerpt:
The Homosexual Agenda: Excerpt 3

Book: The Homosexual Agenda
The following excerpt is taken from Chapter 6, "The Silence (and Silencing) of the Church"

It was a Sunday morning in early December 1989. The late Cardinal John O’Connor was just beginning his sermon in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Suddenly, shouts came from the congregation.

“You bigot, O’Connor, you’re killing us,” yelled one angry man. Others quickly joined him from the militant homosexual group ACT-UP, who stretched themselves out in the aisles or chained themselves to pews. O’Connor tried not to be flustered and went on with the service. As he continued, the police arrested 43 protestors, carrying out on stretchers those who refused to stand. One irate individual made his way to the altar for Communion, took a wafer, and threw it on the ground. 1

Flash forward to 1993 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. In November 1992, the voters of Colorado passed Amendment 2, which would have denied those who practice homosexual behavior special rights. The man who helped get Amendment 2 on the Colorado ballot, Wil Perkins, was sitting in his normal pew at Village Seven Presbyterian Church. Just before the pastor got up to read the morning Scripture, more than a dozen radical homosexual activists leaped out of the congregation and bombarded the parishioners with condoms. 2

Why is this battle so hot? Because for those who take their faith seriously, the Bible is very clear on this issue. (See Genesis 19, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Matthew 19:4-5, Romans 1:24-28, Leviticus 18:22, 1 Timothy 1:8-11.) These verses are very straightforward, and it is difficult to interpret them as anything different than condemning homosexual behavior.

Unfortunately, many evangelicals fear the I word (intolerant), have seen incidents like the ones described earlier, and therefore have sought appeasement with those who seek to undermine and silence the moral authority of the church and the Gospel. It is much like Neville Chamberlain’s going to see Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 and selling out his own country and its allies for the sake of “peace in our time.” The bottom line is that with radical homosexual activists, appeasement is not enough. As we have seen, they are demanding total submission to their agenda. Therefore, with each compromise the church makes, another compromise is expected, until the church has nothing left to defend.

The reality is that radical homosexual activists and their allies are looking for any opportunity to attack any church that takes a biblical stand with regard to homosexual behavior, regardless of denomination. As Chamberlain and Great Britain found out, appeasement only leads to empowering those who want to destroy you. For example:
Ron Greer, an 18-year veteran of the Madison, Wisconsin, fire department, handed out a tract to his fellow firefighters and friends that outlined the biblical position on homosexual behavior. Greer was suspended without pay and ordered to attend diversity training. When he refused, he was fired. 3

Orthodox Presbyterian pastor Chuck McIlhenny dismissed his church organist when the organist divulged that he was a practicing homosexual. The organist sued the church, tying up McIlhenny in five years of legal battles in which he and the church ultimately prevailed. During that time, he and his family received death threats, had their residence firebombed, and were told by the San Francisco Police Department that there was nothing they could do to stop radical homosexual activists from threatening him and his family. 4
Nowhere is the fight for religious freedom more evident than in the assault of radical homosexual activists upon the church. If intimidation does not work, homosexual activists are willing to unleash the power of federal, state, and local governments to cow the church and believers into silence.

And once the church is silenced on the sexual behavior issue, it will not take long before it is silenced on other issues. Already in Canada, churches and other religious organizations cannot speak out on homosexual behavior for fear of finding themselves in violation of hate-crime laws. If speaking out against homosexual behavior is considered “hate,” then what about other sexual sins, such as adultery? Without moral authority, the church in the United States will become like so many are now in Europe, museum pieces from an era long, long ago. The result will be tragic for the millions of individuals who will be unable to hear and respond to the Gospel because churches may no longer be allowed to proclaim it.


Footnotes
1 Ed Magnusen, “In a Rage Over AIDS: A Militant Protest Group Targets the Catholic Church,” Time, December 25, 1989.
2 Rosemary Harris, “Church Service Is Interrupted by Gay Activists Throwing Condoms,” Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, November 8, 1993.
3 “Federal Judge Upholds Firing of Madison Firefighter,” Associated Press, June 23, 1999.
4 The McIlhenny’s long struggle against radical homosexual activists is chronicled in the book When the Wicked Seize a City by Pastor McIlhenny and Frank York (Huntington House Publishers).

Susan Smith said...

Thanks Christine. It is good to see you "back in the office"!

Love from the Holy Land. (ss)

Boo said...

Just so we're clear, it's not exactly free speech that this guy is standing up for:

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=818&date=20050107

"The Westboro Baptist Church set up its anti-Sweden site following Green’s conviction last June. The church is well known for its focus on sex, and also owns the site godhatesfags.com. The site calls Sweden “perverted, irreversibly cursed of God and damned.”

Speaking to The Local, Green has told of his distress that the website is using his name in this way:

“I think it is appalling that people say things like that,” he said, “it is extremely unpleasant.”

Green said that he has contacted newspapers in the United States to distance himself from the comments on the website. He added that he is surprised that authorities in the United States have not intervened. “This harms Christianity,” he said."

So apparently Pastor Green doesn't have a problem with "hate speech" laws as long as they aren't directed at him.

Julie said...

Ake's full sermon is available in English on his Web site. Go here:

http://www.akegreen.org/

Ted W said...

Thanks for your kind comments on my website (http://Christianrecovery.blogspot.com

Im not surprised about what is happening in Sweden. Most of Europe now are socialist governments and it is typical.

The difference between Sweden and us is that we have the Free speech provisions of the US Constitution.I dont think the US Supreme Court is to the point where they would allow free speech restrictions for speaking out against gays from the pulpit.

However, unbeknownst to many Americans there have been recent decisions by the courts to allow restrictions on what they call "Commercial Speech". In other words, if you have a book for profit it doesnt have the same free speech protections as regular speech. Free speech restrictions around abortion clinics were recently struck down which is a postive sign. In addtion, many of the states have in their State Constitutions provisions which protect free speech.

For the time being, we are free to speak out against homosexuality in the United States, and we should avail ourselves of the opportunity.

Fortunately, Congress does not have the authority to overide the Constitution without amendement event if they want to.

God Bless

Ted Wegener

Christinewjc said...

Hello boo,

Welcome to my blog! And thanks for sharing your opinion and some additional information.

There is a major difference between your claim about the Westboro website material and what pastor Greene did. Greene was arrested, booked, and tried for "hate crime speech against homosexuals" mostly because there are those who are trying to silence him from expressing and commenting on what is CLEARLY written in the Bible on this subject. But what is even worse is that they are trying to censor him at the PULPIT in HIS OWN CHURCH!

While I was writing this response, I received email notification of a comment by Julie (thanks so much and welcome to my blog Julie!) on where we can all read the entire sermon.

Go Here to read pastor Green's sermon in its entirety. Then, you tell me if you still think he should be tried for "hate crimes" against homosexuals.

Boo said...

Try not to read more into my comments than is actually there. I think this prosecution is a travesty and I hope Green is acquitted.

I was just pointing out that, while Green is being prosecuted by the Swedish government for expressing religious views which are offensive to others, he expressed disappointment that the US government isn't going after someone else for expressing religious views which are offensive to him.

Win or lose, the man is a raging hypocrite.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Ted,

Welcome to my blog! I'm glad you came over to visit. You are most welcome any time.

I love to find Bible-believing born again Christians in the blogosphere and see how they share their faith with others. I have been most blessed by many who frequent this blog and share their life-changing testimonies and comments.

I had not heard of the "Commercial Speech" laws until you mentioned it here. Can you share more details about it? Doesn't sound good AT ALL!

Ted stated: "For the time being, we are free to speak out against homosexuality in the United States, and we should avail ourselves of the opportunity."

I'm certainly with you on that one!! It is kinda scary to think that our freedom of speech and freedom of religious conscience on this topic may be only available, "for the time being!"

People do not realize the threat that radical gay activists present on this issue. They are relentless in their desires and attempts to silence Christians, once and for all, through bogus "hate crimes speech laws" through legislation efforts that are disguised as something good. Woe to those who call evil good and good, evil!

If you have not read it yet, go to this Link and read pastor Green's sermon. It's truly awesome for it exposes exactly how this gay agenda deception is ruining lives and families.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

I look at his comment as his own opinion that the Phelps & Co. methods give Christianity and the true gospel message a bad name. His comment may not have been legally consistent with what he is currently going through, but I believe that his heart was in the right place.

Boo said...

But if the article is correct, it goes a little beyond simply having his own opinion (which, in regards to Phelps at least, I agree with):

"He added that he is surprised that authorities in the United States have not intervened."

He wants protection for speech he agrees with and prosecution for speech he doesn't agree with. He wants done to others that which he disagrees with being done to himself.

And if his heart was in the right place he probably wouldn't have an article on his website promoting the "gays are ten times as likely to molest children as straights" myth when anyone who actually reads the research will know that, counterintuitively, almost all men who molest boys are actually heterosexual. Weird but true.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

I went to the site you posted and read the article. The paragraph in question stated:

"Green said that he has contacted newspapers in the United States to distance himself from the comments on the website. He added that he is surprised that authorities in the United States have not intervened. “This harms Christianity,” he said."

It doesn't appear that the "surprised that authorities hasn't intervened" is a direct quote. Do you know where the author of the article got that from?

I have seen pastor Green's words taken out of context, misquoted and slandered so without direct quote documentation, I am hesitant to trust that statement either.

If he did say it, it may be a result of what he has seen, experienced, and is currently used to under the Swedish form of government.

In any case, Green wants to distance himself from Phelp's claims, statements, and support of him at the GHF website. Do you know if many of the U.S. papers Green contacted actually agreed and published his concerns?

The problem is, many newspapers support the gay agenda and it most certainly works better for the gay activists side and views if they can lump Green in with Phelp's crowd.

Green has the transcript of his sermon to show the truth of what he shared and the views he holds. It is very evident that they are not anything like Phelp's.

About your "heterosexual men molest boys more than gays do" comment. Care to share your sources on that? If an act done on a boy is by a man, then it is a homosexual sex act. Heterosexuals do not engage in such acts. Maybe someone deemed bisexual would, but not men who are heterosexual.

Besides, the scientific studies done at NARTH state the opposite of what you claim here.

Also, the evidence involved in the 'pedophile' priest scandal in the Catholic church were more accurately 80% gay sexual molestation done on teen or pre-teen boys. It should have been labeled a pederast scandal because of the ages of the boys at the time that these awful molestations occurred.

Boo said...

Here's a good review of the studies done on sexual orientations of molesters of boys:

http://www.lookingforsam.com/archive/Issues/csa01.htm

Basically, what researchers have found is that men who molest boys almost invariably are heterosexual in their adult relations. They seem to have a sort of "dual" sex drive. Researchers at NARTH and the like arrive at their conclusions simply by identifying any man-boy molesting as "homosexual" which is correct in the sense of them both being the same sex but not correct in the sense that these are not actually men who are attracted to other men. (although molesters of older teens may well be)

I'm not trying to claim that Green agrees with Phelps views. I'm sure he doesn't.

As to the veracity of the article's claims, I have no way to find out. I did find this on Green's website where he mentions the Swedish government going after Phelps and at the very least does not seem to disagree with the idea:

"The Swedish media have gone crazy about Phelps and WBC. They have sent teams to visit Phelps in Kansas. After such a trip, the front cover of one of Sweden's major daily paper showed a big picture of Phelps' face with the headline: "The King is a Puke !" The Royal Court is not standing still. A spokesman for the monarchy (Morgan Gerle) has stated: "We will get in touch with legal expertise and hopefully be able to close him down". Whether this will lead to action against Phelps by our Administration or the State Department, we shall see. The relationship between Sweden and the US has been quite good ever since the Swedes helped the Nazis with the occupation of Norway during the WW II. (With the possible exception when Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme arranged demonstrations in Sweden and Europe against the US attempt to stop communism in Vietnam). So let's hope that this will not lead to strained relations between the two countries."

"If he did say it, it may be a result of what he has seen, experienced, and is currently used to under the Swedish form of government."

Which may also explain the gay activists who want to shut him down. They all grew up in a culture where these sorts of laws exist, so this may not necessarily be an evil plot by radical gay activists to destroy the church, just the natural consequences of Sweden not having a good free-speech tradition.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

There will always be competing studies going on about this issue. Statistics can (unfortunately) be easily manipulated. At Pastor Green's website, there is a comprehensive article with links that show statistics and answer the question, "Are homosexuals more often pedophiles?" One conclusion that was reached was:

"In other words: by using this methodology we find that a homosexual person is 10 times as likely as a heterosexual person to be a child molester."

ANY kind of child molestation is absolutely abhorrent no matter who or what sexual orientation the perpetrator hails from!!

There is such a thing as righteous anger and as far as this sin is concerned, I'm sure that Jesus would agree because in Matthew 18:6 He said:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Boo said...

"There will always be competing studies going on about this issue. Statistics can (unfortunately) be easily manipulated. At Pastor Green's website, there is a comprehensive article with links that show statistics and answer the question, "Are homosexuals more often pedophiles?" One conclusion that was reached was:

"In other words: by using this methodology we find that a homosexual person is 10 times as likely as a heterosexual person to be a child molester.""

Come on Christine, that's ducking the issue. There are studies done with very poor methodology competing with studies done with better methodology. The question isn't how often boys are molested by men, the question is whether the molesters are in fact gay men, since that's what the article purports to answer. It doesn't. The only article Green links to which purports to answer that question is the Worldnetdaily one. That article in turn cites only two studies. One is from the Paul Cameron propoganda journal "Psychological Reports" (which is not peer-reviewed) which arrived at its conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to molest children simply by labeling any man-on-boy molestation as homosexual, in other words not actually bothering to find out if the men were in fact homosexual. The other "study" cited:

"A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years."

In the first place, "Archives of Sexual Behavior" is a journal, not a study. The article does not actually cite this "study" so there's no way to check it. In the second, the actual articles from that very journal that were cited in the previous link I provided in fact said quite the opposite of what WND claims. Most men who molest boys claim to be heterosexual and test as heterosexual.

"ANY kind of child molestation is absolutely abhorrent no matter who or what sexual orientation the perpetrator hails from!!"

Yes, but the question is who is doing the molesting. If Pastor Green focuses people's attention on homosexual men as potential molesters, then people's attention will be directed away from actual pedophiles, and this will put children at greater risk. If Pastor Green is going to make such incendiary claims, he ought to be really sure of his research first, since accusing people of being pedophiles is a pretty serious charge. He either didn't bother to do the research or didn't care.

"There is such a thing as righteous anger and as far as this sin is concerned, I'm sure that Jesus would agree because in Matthew 18:6 He said:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.""

Yes, but I'm sure Jesus would also want us to make sure our righteous anger is directed at the correct target. Thou shalt not bear false witness and all.

Boo said...

Erp...

"This website is administered by supporters and friends of Pastor Åke Green. Although we are in agreement with Pastor Green on the contents of his sermons and his faith in the Bible as the word of God and admire him for his great courage to speak out on this subject, the contents of this website is not directed by, nor officially approved by Pastor Green himself."

So apparently he's not responsible for the article on Fred and the king or the gays are ten times as likely to molest children claim in the other article.

The sermon did still try to make that link tho:

"Now I read from the original text, it goes like this: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do not deceive yourselves. Neither sexually immoral people nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor people of sensual pleasure, nor defilers of boys, shall inherit God's kingdom." Defilers of boys -- already when the Bible was written the Lord knew what was going to happen. We have experienced it here, and we are horrified by it. In First Timothy 1:10 Paul talks about perverts. "Perverse" is translated from the original text, which states: "one who lies with boys."

All homosexuals are not pedophiles or perverts. They nevertheless open the door to forbidden areas and allow sin to take hold of the life of the mind. And the one who is a pedophile today does not start out as such. They simply begin by changing their gender relationships. That is how it began."

Except that research says it's not. And then:

"From Matthew 18, I must include verse 6 where Jesus deals with children, stating:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." [The Swedish version's quote of "offend" is "seduce."]

"Seduce" is here translated from the word skandala [scandal]. So now we all know what it is -- a scandal. It is a scandal to seduce one of these little ones, and now I want to focus a little on the situation of the children in the relationship of a [domestic] partnership. [It is] a scandal to rob a child of its Mommy and its Daddy. It is a scandal, Jesus says. It is a scandal to let innocent children be subjected to this torture. You violate a child by moving it from parents, from Mommy and Daddy, to either two men or two women. It can be said that two men can bring up children just as well, or that two women can bring up children just as well. Yes, that I believe, that they can bring up [children] that way, but it nevertheless goes against nature, and it is a scandal when you do it that way, Jesus says. Where somebody seduces one of these little ones, and they have to grow up in such an environment."

Still equating gay people with seducing children. (And I have no idea where he got the idea that gay couples are going around robbing straight couples of their children.)

Not necessarily criminal, but definitely irresponsible.

Christinewjc said...

The other article showed that percentagewise, homosexuals molest children more often than the percentage of heterosexual offenders.

It is difficult to argue with what the Bible clearly states on all of these issues. The verse quoted in your comment DOES INCLUDE other sins, including heterosexual sexual sins. The pastor was focusing in on the homosexual issue in the sermon so that may be why you are seeing a lopsided representation of "sins."

The pastor was most likely referring to the acceptance of homosexual couples adopting children and thus being deprived of having both a mother and a father when growing up. We could probably argue ad nauseum on that issue, but it would be unproductive (IMO).

As far as equating gay people with seducing children goes, there is plenty of condemnation for heterosexual predators, too. Recently, my teen daughter and I watched "Human Trafficking" on the Lifetime channel. We were both completely horrified by this devastating type of sexual exploitation and crime perpetrated against women, boys, and girls. I have been planning on doing a post about it, but it is such a sad and awful subject, I haven't had the desire to do so yet.

In my current Bible Study on the book of Genesis, we all read the following verse which described what man was like just before the flood:

Genesis 7:5 - The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (bold emphasis mine)

I thought of that verse when I was watching Human Trafficking because it perfectly described the type of people involved in such a horrendous trade that inflicts continual pain, harm, and death on its victims. It is evil depravity at its worse!

Then, I thought of the verse in the New Testament where Paul tells us that "God gave them over to their sinful lusts," (the Bible version below states it as "gave them up unto.") I can better understand that verse in the context of realizing Genesis 7:5. When a person reaches the point where every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time, what else could be done for them?

The terms "vile affections" include all types of sexual sin, and then the verse goes on to to say, "for even..." and indicates homosexual sex acts (even though the word wasn't invented yet...the description of what they did was indisputably clear)in the verse:

Romans 1:26-27:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

The only solution was the provision of Jesus Christ as Savior. He is the only way for man to be rescued from eternal death. Thank God that he has provided a way out! Those who hear Jesus "knocking at the door of their hearts" will repent, let Him in and allow His righteousness to cover their sins so that they can be reconciled to God.

This is the gospel message that Pastor Green was ultimately trying to get across in that sermon. It was not to condemn homosexuals, it was to rescue them from the same fate that we ALL deserve because of sin in our lives. The important thing to remember is that the 'bad news' that we are all sinners in need of the Savior must be shared, realized by each individual within his/her own heart, confessed and repented of before the 'Good News' of Christ can first be realized, and then be invited in to dwell within their soul in the form of the Holy Spirit. That is what being born again means. That is the salvation message of the gospel. There is no other way to be reconciled to God. We all need to answer Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?" Our positive Peter-like response to that question (Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.)

And the born-again experience is necessary to be saved and live forever in God's kingdom when this brief live on earth is over.

John 3:3 -Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 - Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Boo said...

"The other article showed that percentagewise, homosexuals molest children more often than the percentage of heterosexual offenders."

No, it didn't. That's the point I keep trying to get across. Almost all of the men who molest boys are not actually homosexual. If you look for boy molesters among homosexual men, you will be looking in the wrong place. You will be endangering children by concentrating your efforts to find pedophiles among the wrong population.

"It is difficult to argue with what the Bible clearly states on all of these issues. The verse quoted in your comment DOES INCLUDE other sins, including heterosexual sexual sins. The pastor was focusing in on the homosexual issue in the sermon so that may be why you are seeing a lopsided representation of "sins.""

In this instance I am not arguing what the Bible states (although if as Pastor Green claims the Bible is talking about men seducing boys then these would not, strictly speaking, be verses condeming homosexuals, but pedophiles, who again are simply a different population.) The problem I'm discussing here is the false equation of gay men with child molesters, either through carelessness (and accusations of child molesting are a pretty bad thing to be careless about) or deliberate deception. The sexual violation of a child is possibly the single most evil thing a human being can do. This is the modern-day equivalent of the Blood Libel.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

Please don't be naive. There are MANY gay men who molest boys. Some end up murdering them. Two examples are the deaths of pre-teen boys by homosexual men which, if you did a google search, brings up 208,000 websites. The rapes and deaths of both boys can be read at Here. It is undesputable that these were gay men who committed these horrible rapes and murders of these pre-teen boys. The site is filled with stories of additional murders and this Page describes dozens of homosexual predators and their victims. Still need more proof? Visit Here, Here, Here, and Here.

I wonder. Have you ever heard of these two victims? If not, do you wonder why?

Matthew Shepard is a household name, but these two boys and the crimes perpetrated against them were not widely shown on the news. Know why? I'll let you take a guess first.

Another interesting point. The google search for the one name of "Jeffrey Curley" brought up 208,000 sites. For the other victim, Jesse Dirkhising, the search brought up 42,500.

Now. Compare these totals to the total of sites that come up when "Matthew Shepard's" name is put in. The google search for him brings up 4,390,000 sites!

I ask you again. Do you know why this is so? Also, did you know that it has now been revealed that Shepard may have been murdered for his money and not because he was gay?

Now, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF NOT BEING SYMPATHETIC TOWARD MATTHEW SHEPARD!!! This is what ALWAYS happens when I mention the fact of the discrepancy of news coverage when a gay man is murdered verses when gay men murder others. ALL OF THESE MURDERS WERE HORRIBLE!!!

I just want to point out that it may be possible that you are severely misinformed on this issue.

Christinewjc said...

Make that "indisputable." Meant to change it but forgot before I hit the post button.

Christinewjc said...

The silencing of the murder of Mary Stachowicz is another example of the media bias against reporting the murder of Christians (or anyone else) by homosexuals.

Again, I ask...why do you think this is so?

Christinewjc said...

Forgot to add this. The google search for the murder of Mary Stachowicz yields 15,700 sites where Matthew Shepard's has 4,390,000 sites.

Again, I ask anyone reading this to comment. Why do you think this is so??

Please visit Straight Talk Radio and click on the broadcast for 11/17/05 which mentions the upcoming trial of the murderers of Mary Stachowicz.

Never heard of her? This radio broadcast will tell you why.

The radio segment provides a detailed explanation of why the media does not cover cases like her brutal murder with the same veracity or diligence as they did when Matthew Shepard was tragically beaten to death.

I guarantee one thing after listening to this broadcast. The glaring and devastating error of 'hate crimes' law will clearly be revealed and seen.

Boo said...

Christine- please try to understand what I'm actually saying. There are many men who molest boys. However, the actual research shows that it is quite rare for these men to engage in homosexual relationships with other adults, and that when they do engage in sexual relationships with adults, it is almost always with women. Pedophilia is a paraphilia. It is the sexual attraction to children. If being homosexual had no relationship to having the paraphilia of pedophilia, then one would expect to find that homosexuals would have a tendency to be pedophiles in proportion to their numbers in the population. The Dirkhizing killers actually bear that out, as they had molested both boys and girls. In most of the other cases those links provided, they simply talked about men who had abused boys. They did not have evidence that most of the men were gay. A few appear to have been. We should expect that a small percent of molesters are gay, the same as the percentage of gay men in the population, which is what the research actually demonstrates.

As far as the hate crimes issue, do you understand that I am mostly in agreement with you? In one sense I'm glad that the Dirkhizing murder didn't get as much airtime as the Shephard murder, because then more people would promote it as a "homosexual pedophile" crime, which might lead to more violence against gay people from other, less stable people. However, yes, a murder is a murder is a murder and we shouldn't have sentencing enhancements based on motive.

As far as the Stachowicz murder, yes, it is a tragedy. But is there some sort of epidemic of homosexuals running around murdering Christians in this country? (If so I guess I'll have to murder myself.) This appears to have been an isolated incident perpetrated by somebody who'd been taught to hate himself growing up and finally snapped. Gay people are murdered or assaulted in this country at a far higher rate than the rest of the population simply because their existence offends someone else. Right or wrong, the media turned Shepherd into a symbol of something that's been going on for quite some time. Until there's an epidemic of hate crimes perpetrated against Christians by homosexuals, there's nothing for the Stachowicz murder to symbolize, and it remains an individual tragedy. Which is why there's no way for the media to spin it into a huge national story.

Christinewjc said...

Did you even listen to the Straight Talk Radio broadcast? You need to.

I am not pressing this issue to force you or anyone else to think that homosexuals commit more crimes against Christians or vice versa. The whole point (and original point) was to show how 'hate crimes' protection geared towards only a SPECIFIC group can lead to false claims, suppression of free speech and freedom of association for religious people (especially Bible-believing Christians!) and even CRIMINALIZATION of those who adhere to Bible beliefs that homosexual behavior is abhorrent and sin.

There is no need for the designation of a special group (a group that includes less than 2% of the population!) because of a specific type of BEHAVIOR that they engage in. In addition, statistics that I have read show that many assaults on homosexuals are done by other homosexuals! Now, how would we categorize THAT as a 'hate crime'?

I don't have the time at this moment, but later I will post some examples of faked hate crimes done by lesbians and gays against themselves!!! Don't believe me? Wait and see.

Again, this is YET ANOTHER reason to oppose sexual orientation in 'hate crimes' legislation because it can be abused in this way (among all the rest of the abuses I have cited) and it is not necessary because ALL assaults and murders are already covered under our laws. Pointing specific ones out to make them more 'deserving' for lack of a better word, of punishment than others is WRONG and can be terribly misused.

Christinewjc said...

The following is from Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Website.

For Real: Many Well-Publicized 'Hate Crimes' Were Staged 8/24/2005
By Lindsey Douthit

The goal is to keep homosexuality in the public eye, no matter what the cost.

It seems to defy logic: people committing "hate crimes" against themselves.


But cases keep arising of homosexuals staging hate crimes and then portraying themselves as victims of narrow-minded bigots. Often, the cases occur while a pro-homosexual measure is under consideration, such as a "hate crimes" law or the addition of "sexual orientation" to a statute or campus policy.


Homosexuals who commit faked hate crimes often admit to police that they did it either for attention or to express anger over the slowness of social "reform." In either case, the initial publicity creates the impression of an urgent need for the public to do something.


We have assembled a brief list of such cases to show that they exist. This does not mean that some people are not victimized, which we find deplorable. Every person deserves equal protection under the law. But the public deserves to know there is a problem with fakery in the name of victim status.


Here are various instances of faked hate crimes that gained publicity:



At the University of Georgia, a homosexual resident assistant reported that he had been victimized in nine hate crimes, including three supposed incidents of arson. When police questioned him, he admitted to performing the acts himself.1


A homosexual student at the College of New Jersey, Edward Drago, was arrested for sending death threats to himself and a homosexual student group in which he served as treasurer. Before Drago confessed to committing the crimes himself, a large student rally was held, complete with faculty support and pink ribbons. Drago was suspended pending a disciplinary hearing in court.2


A lesbian student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota slashed her own face and falsely claimed that two men shouted anti-homosexual remarks and attacked her. Students raised almost $12,000 as a reward for information about her "attackers."3


At Eastern New Mexico University, a lesbian student claimed that she had been attacked after her name was posted on an anti-homosexual "hit list" at a local coin laundry. Police arrested her after a surveillance camera showed her posting the list.4


A lesbian in South Carolina was charged in 2001 with giving false information to a police officer, saying that she had been beaten. Police contend that she hired a man to beat her so that she could report it as a hate crime.5


In Manchester, England, a homosexual minister faked a story about being raped. He is quoted as saying that he felt "intrinsically evil" for his sexual desires. The staged rape attack prompted an intensive police investigation, and upon admitting to an attempted perversion of the court of justice, the minister was given a two-year community rehabilitation sentence and was fined 10,000 pounds.6


In Mill Valley, California, a 17-year-old female wrestler at a local high school faked a series of "gay-bashing" incidents that prompted a police investigation. She claimed that she was the target of hateful language, i.e. anti-homosexual epithets on her car and school locker, and was pelted with eggs outside her home. The teenager was the leader of her school's Gay-Straight Alliance and later admitted to authorities that she perpetrated all of the incidents.7

On the surface, these incidents might seem merely like stunts performed by attention seekers. However, there may be the deeper motivation of garnering cultural sympathy for the homosexual lifestyle. If you make people feel sorry for you, you'll get your way.


This manipulative method is described in After the Ball, a 1989 book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two public relations experts who taught homosexual activists how to achieve societal desensitization and to "jam" anyone opposing them. Here's their core strategy:


In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable.8


Americans have a soft spot for victims and the downtrodden, which speaks well of American character. Images of an innocent person being treated unfairly invoke pangs of guilt, shame and anger in the heart of the average citizen. Over the years, homosexual activists have ruthlessly exploited this good nature and used it to advance a series of "gay rights" measures that, taken together, will result in suppressing anyone who opposes homosexuality for any reason.


Even though most of the people committing faked hate crimes are eventually exposed by police or confess under investigation, their hoaxes still raise support for homosexual activism. Not everyone finds out about the hoax, and the attention is still focused on the "need" for more laws.


As recommended by authors Kirk and Madsen, the goal is to keep homosexuality in the public eye, no matter what the cost.


"The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself."9


By keeping the media fixed upon them as a victim class, homosexuals perpetuate their image as people in need of special protections.


So far, this has produced results that have stunned even the activists themselves: They continue to "cry wolf," and the public continues to run to their rescue.


Lindsey Douthit, a 2005 graduate of Baylor University, wrote this as an intern for the Culture & Family Institute at Concerned Women for America.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes

John Leo, "Faking the Hate," U.S. News and World Report, June 5, 2000, p. 22.
"Gay Student Faked Hate E-mail Campaign," http://www.le-national.com/Worldnat/gay-faked-emails.html.
Leo, op. cit.
Ibid.
"Crying Wolf?" World, August 1, 1999, p. 8; and see Lisa Chiu, "Hate Crime Report a Hoax," azcentral.com, October 2, 2001.
"Gay Minister Faked Rape," The (London) Times, May 28, 2005.
"Girl Admits She Faked Gay-Bashing Incidents," Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2005.
Kirk, Marshall and Madsen, Hunter, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s, (New York: Doubleday, 1989) p. 183.
Ibid, p. 178.


Staged Hate Crimes

Orchestrated Arson: Another Staged Hate Crime

Boo said...

Christine-

I don't know what it is that's causing this communication block, but I'm going to try one more time. Please try to follow what I'm about to say:

On the issue of special legislation for hate crimes:

I

AGREE

WITH

YOU.

I think it's a good idea for the Justice Department to compile stats on what APPEAR to be bias-motivated attacks against different groups, but beyond that, I don't think we should have any hate-crimes laws.

Also note that you changed the subject. We had been talking about the media promotion of bias-motivated crimes, then you flipped it into legislation.

On the second post, to deny that LGBT individuals are targetted more often than the general population is to deny reality. Of course there are anecdotes of individuals who have faked hate crimes. A couple of years after I left my high school they had this big incident where someone was leaving hatemail in this asian student's mailbox. After a huge investigation and everything, they found out the student was doing this to herself. Does this mean there has never been any anti-asian crime in this country? There is no evidence that individuals faking hate crimes is part of some big conspiracy by "the gay movement," rather it appears to be the actions of disturbed individuals. In the same way, I doubt Pastor Green is part of a huge conspiracy to encourage the murder of gay people even if it is incredibly irresponsible for him to falsely equate gays with pedophiles.

But if you want anecdotes, try this out:

http://www.gender.org/remember/

That's a pretty big list for a population that is much smaller than even the homosexual population.

Boo said...

And also:

"The whole point (and original point) was to show how 'hate crimes' protection geared towards only a SPECIFIC group can lead to false claims, suppression of free speech and freedom of association for religious people (especially Bible-believing Christians!) and even CRIMINALIZATION of those who adhere to Bible beliefs that homosexual behavior is abhorrent and sin."

You and I both know this could never happen, at least not in the US. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association. The problems in other countries arise from a lack of free speech protections in general. These kinds of prosecutions have not been uncommon for people saying racist or anti-semitic things in those countries. Funny how no one cared until it got to being about homosexuals.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

I'm glad that you agree with me that "hate crimes" legislation is a bad idea.

I did not claim that LGBT people are not targeted. But consider this. What is not well known (by the general public) or discussed is that a lot (not claiming all!) of the physical domestic abuse is often perpetrated on a gay person by a gay lover (or former lover).

I think that when the truth is not told on these issues, it gets skewed in the direction of the ideology that the media wants to portray; that of victimization. Remember. I am NOT claiming that gays are never victimized! What I'm saying is that the media chooses to ONLY portray gays as victims. They don't cover the crimes inflicted on children like Jeffrey Curley, Jesse Dirkhising, and people like Mary Stachowicz. And, I don't agree with your accessment as to why they are not covered. It's not because they are unusual and/or rare cases. It is because they don't portray gays as the victim. They are the perpetrators. And, I don't think you are correct that revealing this will incite more violence against gay people. It may reduce the "they are always the victim" status that is now prevalent in the news and thus could possibly affect the latest legislation (or, usually more often court case) they are trying to push through to get their way. This is one of the real reasons why these cases of gays as predators/murderers do not get the heavy coverage like the Matthew Shepard beating/murder did.

As I said before. They are ALL HORRENDOUS! But I think that it is an absolute travesty of justice for the news media to ignore, squelch or cover up the crimes against people like Jeffrey, Jesse and Mary just because these murders aren't deemed as newsworthy as Shepard's.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that existing laws can be applied in every one of these cases. If a law is not strong enough, then it should be strengthened. For instance. When the recent trial in the case of the death of a drag queen gave the killer a light sentence, I was horrified! No matter that he was deceived into thinking the man was a woman. That's absolutely NO EXCUSE to kill him! Personally, I think that the "gay panic" defense is at fault and THAT particular defense concept as applied to law should be changed.

I also think that Jessica's Law should be passed in all 50 states. Children need more protection from all types of sexual predators, period.

About the homosexual/pedophile link. I have heard your argument before. But it doesn't make logical sense. A male adult who sexually abuses a boy is involved in homosexual behavior, is he not? How can you label the person a heterosexual then? He may be bisexual, but not heterosexual. Heterosexuality is defined in the dictionary as, "sexual desire or behavior directed towards persons of the opposite sex."

A male pedophile who sexually abuses girls would be considered a heterosexual predator. A female pedophile who sexually abuses boys would be considered a heterosexual predator.

Why do you continue to insist that these descriptions are not true?

If we examine your argument further, then wouldn't we have to say that homosexual desire and behavior is fluid and not fixed? If a heterosexual man suddenly gets the urge to sexually abuse a young boy, would you be able to admit that heterosexuality is not fixed? If so, then how about homosexuality?

Yet, gay activists always insist that "gays can't change" and "it's harmful for them to change" yada yada yada. But is this the truth? No. Absolutely not. How do I know? I am friends with 2 people who were involved in homosexuality in the past and now have completely changed to heterosexual behavior and identity. Are you going to claim that these people are lying and don't exist? That's what gay activists try to do. In fact, when I was attempting to invite and ex-gay man to speak at a high school gay-straight alliance meeting, I had a long conversation with him over lunch. He told me that his particular reason for getting involved in the gay lifestyle was to punish his dad who was a Christian pastor. He contracted HIV because of his rebellion against both God and his own father. He repented, became born-again, and now works in sexual brokenness ministry. He is married to a woman, too.

I have a beautiful new friend named Susan who lives in Israel. She was caught up in lesbianism for 20 years and had other addictions, too. Her miraculous release from this bondage and her testimony is mentioned here in this blog. She is completely free through the power of Jesus Christ. Are you going to deny that this is not possible when we have living proof that change is possible?

So which is it? Fixed or fluid?

One other thing. My Christian friend Dean told me that he received much more bashing and death threats when he became heterosexual and a born-again Christian than he had ever received living as a gay man. Another good Christian friend of mine who I have spoken to on the phone several times told me the exact same thing. He runs a successful ex-gay ministry and he is often the target of vile threats against him and his family. This is absolutely awful!!

I've read about other men who are ex-gay and have been given death threats by gay activists. Where's the tolerance in that?? Where's the 'hate crime' protection for them? In every case, these men (and horribly, their families!)were targeted by gay activists because of who they now are and the ministry they are involved in.

What say you about that, Boo?

Well, I didn't mean to make this post so long, but I wanted to be thorough.

Boo said...

"I did not claim that LGBT people are not targeted. But consider this. What is not well known (by the general public) or discussed is that a lot (not claiming all!) of the physical domestic abuse is often perpetrated on a gay person by a gay lover (or former lover)."

You've changed the subject again. Domestic violence is a separate subject from hate crimes. There is a huge amount of violence in straight relationships too, much of it unreported. In fact, I've read that almost half of battering victims are men but they almost never report it because of the stigma of being abused by a woman.

"Remember. I am NOT claiming that gays are never victimized! What I'm saying is that the media chooses to ONLY portray gays as victims. They don't cover the crimes inflicted on children like Jeffrey Curley, Jesse Dirkhising, and people like Mary Stachowicz. And, I don't agree with your accessment as to why they are not covered. It's not because they are unusual and/or rare cases. It is because they don't portray gays as the victim. They are the perpetrators."

These murders were covered, just not to the extent the Shepherd murder was. I think I agree with you to some small extent in that the media pushes what appear to be bias motivated crimes in terms of coverage moreso than other types of murders, but it's not just with homosexuals. Remember the infamous dragging death of that black man in Texas? That got tons of airtime. Part of it is also probably the unusually gruesome nature of the murders. The Texas guy was literally pulled to pieces. Shepherd was basically crucified and left to die. And the media doesn't always cover these cases. Ask yourself how many of the murders on that link I had above you had ever heard of. I'd guess not more than 2 or 3.

"And, I don't think you are correct that revealing this will incite more violence against gay people. It may reduce the "they are always the victim" status that is now prevalent in the news and thus could possibly affect the latest legislation (or, usually more often court case) they are trying to push through to get their way."

Probably it wouldn't to a huge degree, but I'm pretty sure there'd be some increase. That last sentence was unworthy. We deserve equal rights no matter what our murder rate is. (And the right to enter into a fake marriage to someone I'm not attracted to isn't much of a right.)

"This is one of the real reasons why these cases of gays as predators/murderers do not get the heavy coverage like the Matthew Shepard beating/murder did."

If it's likely that would happen (and it is) then thank God the media doesn't play these cases up.

"About the homosexual/pedophile link. I have heard your argument before. But it doesn't make logical sense. A male adult who sexually abuses a boy is involved in homosexual behavior, is he not? How can you label the person a heterosexual then? He may be bisexual, but not heterosexual. Heterosexuality is defined in the dictionary as, "sexual desire or behavior directed towards persons of the opposite sex.""

Because what we're talking about is a paraphilia. Paraphilias are not quite exactly the same thing as sexual orientations. Take a guy who has a fetish for shoes. He has relationships with women, but what really gets him going are shoes. Is he a gay man? No, he's a straight man with a shoe fetish. There's a sort of dual attraction going on. Pedophiles are men with a child fetish. As in the general population, the large majority are heterosexual in their relationships but what really gets them going are kids. If you check in the link to those pedophile studies I put up earlier, one of the studies was asking these men what they liked about young boys. Without going into icky details, let's just say that they tended to mention characteristics which are stereotypically associated with femininity. That's why pedophiles aren't attracted to boys over a certain age- they grow up and get too masculine. As I said before, men who molest older teenagers, like the 16-17 range, often tend to be gay. The DSM explains it better in the Paraphilia section.

"I am friends with 2 people who were involved in homosexuality in the past and now have completely changed to heterosexual behavior and identity. Are you going to claim that these people are lying and don't exist?"

Since I don't know these people and can't read their minds, I have no idea. I do know that research suggests women, on the whole, tend to be a bit more flexible in their sexuality than men, but that's as a rough group. I also know that there are many many ex-gays who have married but admit they rarely have sex with their wives and often fantasize about guys to do so. But if your friend has found what makes him happy, then I'm happy for him.

"She was caught up in lesbianism for 20 years and had other addictions, too. Her miraculous release from this bondage and her testimony is mentioned here in this blog."

But the great majority of us don't experience our sexuality as an addiction or a bondage any more than straight people do. Since most "ex-gay" therapy treats homosexuality as a sexual addiction, it is most likely to attract that small percentage of the gay population who are also sex addicts, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"My Christian friend Dean told me that he received much more bashing and death threats when he became heterosexual and a born-again Christian than he had ever received living as a gay man."

You Christian friend Dean has actually been bashed by gay guys? That's horrible.

"Another good Christian friend of mine who I have spoken to on the phone several times told me the exact same thing. He runs a successful ex-gay ministry and he is often the target of vile threats against him and his family. This is absolutely awful!!"

Yes, and gays are the target of vile threats against us as well. Since I have no reason to believe that you have ever sent a death threat to a gay person, I do not blame you for any death threat a gay person recieves. There are disturbed people who are gay and disturbed people who are straight. You also have to understand that what you percieve as lovingly offering the testimony that you feel called to offer is often experienced as extremely insulting and degrading by us. How would you like it if I said your "marriage" was a sham and you were in an unhealthy addiction and bondage?

"Where's the 'hate crime' protection for them?"

Like I keep saying, I'd rather we didn't have those laws.

Christinewjc said...

I wasn't changing the subject. I was making an additional point. It was just one more example about the media's lack of reporting when a crime (or domestic abuse, or what have you) is done by a gay person.

I realize that there are gay people who do not want to change. But I don't think that they have the right to mis-inform teens (who may be sexually questioning) through gay-straight alliances. Gay activist state that change is never possible. They also incorrectly add that trying to change is ALWAYS harmful. Bunk!!

I, and several other concerned parents saw such indoctrination happening with our own eyes while observing several GSA meetings. Also, just for clarity, I will say that the ex-gay man (Dean)was turned down by the advisors from speaking at club. It seems only certain "straight" people can be included in such "alliances." And before you say it...no...he wasn't going to present a talk that would insult, bash or in any way degrade anyone. Plus, it wasn't overtly religious, either. He prepares speeches that can be shared with secular audiences. He was going to share the truth that some gay people can, and have successfully, and happily changed.

I think that Dean's story would have been a very good presentation for teens who are sexually questioning. But no. The other side of the issue gets squelched, once again. They prefer the tired mantra, "you're gay, get used to it."

A few years ago, I attended a "speak out" forum at a local college. There were only 5 conservatives and 60 liberals sharing their points of view.

There was one lesbian minister who succeeded at verbally bashing Christians and conservatives. The moderator tried to stop her, but the words were already said. She had to tone it down for the rest of her rant, but her hatred was so very clear. She left before it was my turn to speak, thank God.

I shared Dean's story. Several students and a few adults attending the forum came up to me to talk afterward. I was surprised. I didn't think that my message was well received. People were mostly silent when I finished. The leader of the conservative side later wrote that my story about Dean was the most riveting. Anyway, one female (straight)college student in particular expressed that she didn't know that gays could change. She had a lesbian friend who was unhappy with her homosexuality, and knowing about Dean had given her new hope to help her friend.

The thing is, our society is so open about everything having to do with sexuality, except the fact that gays can successfully (and happily) change. Don't assume that they are not happy after changing their behavior and sexual orientation. Most are very happy and see it as salvation from that particular bondage of sin.

I realize that not all gays want to change or will change. But those who desire to change should be allowed to pursue it either through Christian or Jewish ministries, or, through secular organizations like NARTH.

Boo stated: "You also have to understand that what you percieve as lovingly offering the testimony that you feel called to offer is often experienced as extremely insulting and degrading by us. How would you like it if I said your "marriage" was a sham and you were in an unhealthy addiction and bondage?"

It is extremely unfortunate that you feel that way. God's Word is clear both about marriage being between one man and one woman and also about the sin of homosexuality. These are God's views about both. As a born-again Christian, I agree with Jesus when he stated, "Your word is truth" to God the Father. He didn't say some of it. He meant all of it.

The alternative is that a person can ignore God's Word, twist the Scriptures or disagree with them. But he/she does so at his/her own peril as far as salvation is concerned.

Boo said...

"I wasn't changing the subject. I was making an additional point. It was just one more example about the media's lack of reporting when a crime (or domestic abuse, or what have you) is done by a gay person."

You seemed to be suggesting one had to do with the other. The media rarely if ever reports any domestic violence cases, as far as I've seen.

"I realize that there are gay people who do not want to change. But I don't think that they have the right to mis-inform teens (who may be sexually questioning) through gay-straight alliances. Gay activist state that change is never possible. They also incorrectly add that trying to change is ALWAYS harmful. Bunk!!"

There is no objective evidence that homosexuals can become heterosexual, except that women are sometimes somewhat flexible (you notice almost all ex-gay programs are geared towards men?). Beyond that, "change" seems to have a very elastic definition within the ex-gay movement. I would hope these groups aren't saying trying to change is ALWAYS harmful, that's not what the APA says. But it has harmed a lot of people. There are people who claim to have eliminated homosexual attractions and developed heterosexual attractions, but there is no real way to test that. (The only measuring instrument that purports to do so has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate.)

"I, and several other concerned parents saw such indoctrination happening with our own eyes while observing several GSA meetings. Also, just for clarity, I will say that the ex-gay man (Dean)was turned down by the advisors from speaking at club. It seems only certain "straight" people can be included in such "alliances." And before you say it...no...he wasn't going to present a talk that would insult, bash or in any way degrade anyone. Plus, it wasn't overtly religious, either. He prepares speeches that can be shared with secular audiences. He was going to share the truth that some gay people can, and have successfully, and happily changed.

I think that Dean's story would have been a very good presentation for teens who are sexually questioning. But no. The other side of the issue gets squelched, once again. They prefer the tired mantra, "you're gay, get used to it.""

GSAs exist for their own purposes. If someone's going to give a talk from the ex-gay perspective that isn't condescending, then maybe it would be nice for the GSA to host it, but they are under no obligation to present the "other side" any more than FCA is obliged to have Muslim speakers. The ex-gay movement is also joined at the hip to the religious right's crusade to deny equal rights to gay people. That is their public face, so that is what people think of when they hear "ex-gay." People like Dean should work within the ex-gay movement to divorce it from the anti-gay political movement. Then they might find themselves more welcome.

"A few years ago, I attended a "speak out" forum at a local college. There were only 5 conservatives and 60 liberals sharing their points of view."

If the overall mood at most colleges is liberal, then conservatives should create their own institutions within those colleges. Many are already doing this.

"There was one lesbian minister who succeeded at verbally bashing Christians and conservatives. The moderator tried to stop her, but the words were already said. She had to tone it down for the rest of her rant, but her hatred was so very clear. She left before it was my turn to speak, thank God."

Sometimes people who have experienced hate give hate in return. It sux.

"I realize that not all gays want to change or will change. But those who desire to change should be allowed to pursue it either through Christian or Jewish ministries, or, through secular organizations like NARTH."

Personally, I think it's a fool's errand, but if someone wants to try, go right ahead. However, they have the right to be informed that there is no real evidence that their sexual orientation will successfully change and that many people have felt harmed by the experience. They have the right to know what the counselor's theoretical perspective is at the beginning to make an informed decision. (One of those "all gays have been molested" people is not going to be a very good choice for someone who hasn't been molested.) If there are obvious issues of self-hatred or other behavioral or psychological problems, those should be dealt with first. And above all, minors should NEVER be forced into any kind of ex-gay program or "childhood gender identity disorder" therapy. The potential for harm rises exponentially with someone who didn't choose to be there and doesn't have an adult's emotional resources.

"It is extremely unfortunate that you feel that way. God's Word is clear both about marriage being between one man and one woman and also about the sin of homosexuality. These are God's views about both. As a born-again Christian, I agree with Jesus when he stated, "Your word is truth" to God the Father. He didn't say some of it. He meant all of it."

You have your interpretation of Scripture, and you understandably feel compelled by your faith to share it with others. However, for those who do not share your interpretation, being told their sexuality is an addiction or a bondage will be extremely insulting, and that is why ex-gay advocates often get hate mail. When people are offended, sometimes they lash back. You yourself have done so on this blog when you refer to people you feel politically offended by as "loony leftist liberals." If someone felt compelled by their interpretation of ultimate truth to tell you that your "marriage" is a sham and you are in bondage to the demons of heterosexuality, I'm sure you would feel offended, and rightly so.

I'm away from the computer until next Monday, so we can pick this battle of wits up then if you'd like. But beware, I've spent the last several years building up immunity to iocaine powder.

Christinewjc said...

"Iocaine" powder? You lost me with that comment.

But I will speak of what I know according to how the Bible is to be received and interpreted.

It is not my interpretation. Have you ever heard of hermeneutics? It is the art or science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. It is the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

As I stated previously, the Bible verses which discuss homosexual behavior are crystal clear. No amount of twisting or re-interpretation could ever take away the original meaning which was being conveyed by God through the writers.

I am re-posting the following reply that I have given previously to those who often make the dubious claim that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." I realize that those who do not adhere to God's Word nor accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can ignore what is written, however, it does use accurate hermeneutics which obviously creates a profound case for the Biblical interpretation that homosexual behavior is an abomination to God and sin.

*******

Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.


When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.


Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.


Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere). So, Jesus was part of the Godhead as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul’s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter’s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John’s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really haven’t understood Scripture, or Who Christ is. Maybe some of these points can help them toward a clearer understanding.

*******

I am including two responses to this post that make the point even clearer.


Post ID: 709 Posted by: pool6x, 2005-09-17 02:13:00

This was an excellent reply based upon the truth of the Bible. Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible's writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality...everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (part of the Godhead) is dittoing it.


Post ID: 716 Posted by: nitsuard, 2005-09-19 01:44:26

Excellent indeed! But I had a bad link to the original article and hope to read it b4 continuing my comments except to say that John 1 explains that Christ was GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible.

Boo said...

'"Iocaine" powder? You lost me with that comment."

From the battle of wits in The Princess Bride! Only one of the best movies ever.

"But I will speak of what I know according to how the Bible is to be received and interpreted.

It is not my interpretation. Have you ever heard of hermeneutics? It is the art or science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures. It is the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

As I stated previously, the Bible verses which discuss homosexual behavior are crystal clear. No amount of twisting or re-interpretation could ever take away the original meaning which was being conveyed by God through the writers.

Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union."

So whatever is not mentioned must be condemned? It seems to me that Jesus did not necessarily mean for His words to apply to every possible contingency that could ever be conceived of absolutely literally. He said to turn the other cheek, and then a little while later he was opening a big ol' can of whup-ass on the money changers in the Temple.

"When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband."

I wasn't planning on committing adultery. When I find the right one, I'll be faithful to her.

"Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood."

Actually, none of those verses mention homosexuality. Ezekiel doesn't even mention sex. It seems clear from the story of Sodom and the commentaries in later books that God disaproves of inhospitality, male-on-male rape (tho apparently offering your daughters up to a sexed-up mob is a sign of righteousness*) pride, and having lots of money and not sharing it. Male rape has often been used throughout history as a sign of dominance. Does it really make sense that all the men of the city, young and old, were gay? How would the city sustain its population?

Just so we're clear where I'm coming from, when I say I'm a Christian I don't mean a wishy-washy Jesus-was-a-heck-of-a-guy kind of Christian, I mean a dyed-in-the-wool I-believe-in-the-literal-truth-of-every-line-of-the-Nicene-Creed type of Christian.

What you've offered me is your interpretation. It is shared by many people, but it is an interpretation. (And of course you think it's the right interpretation, if you didn't you wouldn't hold it.) The Bible is the Word of God, written by the hands of men from cultures that were very different from ours thousand of years ago. The idea of two men, to say nothing of two women, pairing up to spend their lives together simply didn't exist in the cultures that gave birth to the Old or the New Testaments. Similarly, concepts familiar to them don't exist in our culture any more. I don't know about you, but I've never been impressed to carry a Roman legionaire's shield for a mile. Reading the admonition to go two miles with someone literally thus doesn't make sense today. So we attempt to extract the underlying principle we can use. We interpret. Ergo, I won't be having sex with any sacred prostitutes in the temples of pagan gods or having sex with any teenaged boys, so I think I'm covered against what the Old and New Testament writers knew as homosexual behavior.

*And in that culture, it was. Once you opened your home to a traveler, you were obliged to defend them even to the deaths of yourself and your whole family. But what would we think of someone who did that today?

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

It is clear that you come here to argue for arguments sake. My post comments were backed up with Scripture verses that dealt precisely with the issue at hand. I noticed that yours did not contain any Bible verses. Not even a reference (except for one mention of the book of Ezekiel). This is very telling when discussing the Bible. Those who do not adhere to God's Word typically do not use God's Word to defend their point(s) of view.

Do we even need to wonder why this is so? No. We don't. And, I'll tell you why. Because it is extremely difficult and impractible, if not impossible, to stand up against the truth of God's Word.

Oh yes. Skeptics and naysayers have tried to counter God's truth in Scripture. Their superfluous efforts seem to increase and continue to this very day. But their efforts are in vein.

Your attempt to brush off the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as just a "lack of hospitality" would be quite laughable if this wasn't such a serious subject.

But for the sake of those who may still be reading and following this thread, I will post (once again!) an inductive Bible study posted by an internet friend named Jerry Cesario that absolutely destroys your contention that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah did not include homosexuality.

*******

Volume II Issue #8 AUGUST, 2003

The Days Of Lot

"Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30


While I am painfully aware that this month's commentary is not without controversy, I have struggled long and hard with how to present it. Unfortunately, there is just no other way than to just get it out. If you are offended by it, then good. I hope that you will search the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). Now that I have your attention, let me just say that I am going to do my best to expose this darkness, but share the love and mercy of Christ as well. I am also going to use a lot of Scripture, as the Holy Spirit needs to be able to do His job through the understanding of His Word.

The story of Abraham and Lot should be familiar to everyone, however I will refresh your memory on the details. Lot was Abraham's nephew and they had left Ur together in search of the Promised Land. Because God had prospered them both with huge herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, the land began to be too small for their needs. At that point they agreed to separate and each find room for their herds, flocks and families. Abraham let Lot choose first and he chose the plain of Sodom to dwell in. As time would go on, it would become apparent that Lot had made a poor choice.

The Bible does not have a lot to say about Sodom other than that it was very wicked.

Genesis 18:20-21

" And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,

21I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know."

We are told just what this grievous sin is until the next chapter...

Genesis 19...

1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.

2And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way."
And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square."


3But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house.

5And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."

6So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him,

7and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!

8See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

9And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.

10But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.

11And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

As I said, the Bible doesn't say much about Sodom, but what it does say is loud and clear. There are days worth of study in this passage friends. Why was Lot sitting at the gate? This signified his high position on the city council. Lot was tolerant of the rampant sin in the city. What an apt picture of our day and age friends. This is our first clue to why Jesus pointed out the days of Lot as a model for the time of His return. However the second, and most glaring, description of Sodom is that it was filled with the sin of homosexuality. The men of Sodom wanted the 'men' that had come to Lot's house. In fact, they wanted them so bad that they tried to break down the door to get them, and, according to their own words, they wanted them just to have sex with them. They would not even accept the offer of Lot's daughters. Nope. They burned in lust for the men that had come to town.

So where does that leave us today? Jesus likened the days of his return unto the days of Lot. What do we know about the days of Lot other than the rampant homosexuality that marked it? Isn't it odd that we do not know much more about it? I do not think so. In fact, I believe that it is exactly what Jesus was referring to.

The homosexual agenda has been pushing at us for decades with a marked increase in recent years. MTV has been a big factor in pushing it on shows like The Real World and Road Rules. Numerous TV shows, plays and even music stars have been instrumental in advance the homosexual lifestyle upon the world. However, it really seems that there has been a definitive increase in recent weeks. It is as if a line has been crossed, or a dam has been breached and the flood of homosexuality has begun to fill the world. I believe that the dam that broke was the Church. The big news recently was the appointment of the so-called "Gay Bishop". Deluded statements like, "Once again Jesus has turned Good Friday into Easter Sunday" (quoted by Gene Robinson on the day of his appointment), and "We have come to the conclusion as a Church that homosexuality is not wrong. It is just another of the many ways that God expresses himself through man." (in a statement made days earlier regarding the so-called 'Heresy Meeting' days before the appointment by a Episcopalian Church leader).

I do not think that many folks realize the spiritual significance of this story. This should never have even come up for discussion. This was the last frontier for the homosexual agenda friends and now it has been reached! The moral implications not withstanding, the legal implications are going to be very grave indeed. The door is wide open for the homosexual lifestyle to permeate every aspect of society now.
You may have noticed that right on the heels of the bishop appointment were a flurry of TV shows on both cable networks and regular television (to use a phrase lightly). Many more are being advertised for the upcoming season as well. You see, that is the whole point. Now that Satan has officially sanctioned the homosexual lifestyle in the Church, what is holding back the same agenda in the world? Every church is now going to be expected, probably forced, to allow homosexuals to be placed in ministry positions. We can not only expect the flood to fill the obvious demonic controlled areas of society, but now the Church as well. Surely Jesus is coming for his Bride!

Is there anything wrong with homosexual sex? Many today actually believe that it is fine, if homosexuals just keep it to themselves. Well, what does the Word of God have to say about it?

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

It seems pretty clear what God thinks about the act of gay sex. But that was Old Testament some would say...

Romans 1 gives us an overall description of the fate of those who reject God and His salvation through Jesus Christ...

26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting.

And later we read that homosexuals will not enter in to Heaven unless they repent of their homosexual sins and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I Corinthians 6:9-11

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Again in I Timothy 1:10

10for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

I think the Bible is pretty clear, don't you? The problem isn't with homosexuality exclusively. You can replace that sin with any from the list, it simply doesn't matter. Sin is sin is sin! That is the key to this whole thing. However, the elusion to the days of Lot by Jesus Christ, and the delusion that is spreading in the world today are unmistakably linked to the homosexual lifestyle. Thus it is the issue that needs to be dealt with today.

As followers of and believers in Jesus Christ we must be compassionate and seek every opportunity to extend the Gospel to all sinners. Homosexuals do need to be reminded of their specific sins, but rather that their sins are forgiven through the blood of Jesus, should they want it and confess that Jesus is Lord.

For those who are watching the skies and looking for Christ's return, this impending flood is inching oh so much closer. The great rescuing of the Church is surely nigh. Keep the faith saints, and do not bend on the essentials of the faith. The degree of sin being displayed may be perceived as worse than any other, but it is still just sin. We were all guilty before we received the grace of God. Don't forget that God dearly loves the sinner and does not have any joy in the death of the wicked. He loves the homosexual just as much as any other, so much that he sent his Son to die for them too.

... Written by Jerry Cesario

Boo said...

"It is clear that you come here to argue for arguments sake."

That was an uncharitable statement. Attacking your arguments is not the same thing as attacking you. I come here because I'm trying to get an understanding of the absolutist mindset and because I can't quite rid myself of the suggestion that I might be able to get through to you, or someone else reading this. I recall further up this used to be about our agreement that hate crimes laws are misguided and my attempt to show you that homosexuality is quite a different thing from pedophilia and it is wrong to disengenuously equate the two as Pastor Green did. When I found out I was wrong about one point, I admitted it. Would you do likewise?

"My post comments were backed up with Scripture verses that dealt precisely with the issue at hand. I noticed that yours did not contain any Bible verses. Not even a reference (except for one mention of the book of Ezekiel). This is very telling when discussing the Bible. Those who do not adhere to God's Word typically do not use God's Word to defend their point(s) of view."

I was pointing out that none of the verses you cited which you claimed condemn homosexuality even mentioned it (I went back and read them, you see). Your citations do not stand up.

"Your attempt to brush off the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as just a "lack of hospitality" would be quite laughable if this wasn't such a serious subject."

There was lack of hospitality, greed, and violence as cited in Ezekiel. There was also rape, which if you understand the cultural context ties into the lack of hospitality. In the ancient world lack of hospitality was a very serious sin because travel was so dangerous. Rape I'm guessing was pretty frowned on too.

"But for the sake of those who may still be reading and following this thread, I will post (once again!) an inductive Bible study posted by an internet friend named Jerry Cesario that absolutely destroys your contention that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah did not include homosexuality."

--long passage--

You get homosexuality in and of itself being a sin from the story of Sodom only by reading it in. If the story was exactly the same but the angels had been female, would that have made any difference? There's still an attempted mass gang rape.

The simple fact is that you can't understand much of the Bible without understanding the context in which it was written. If you don't agree on that, then we are at an impasse. The men of the city not only refused hospitality but reacted with violence when they found out someone else had given it. In the ancient world male-on-male rape was often used as a means of establishing dominance and humiliating someone, as it still is in prisons today. There is nothing in that story which condemns the idea of two men or two women in love.

As to the other verses which appear to condemn gay sex, again, the idea of two men or two women pairing off simply didn't exist in those times. The writers were speaking out against what they knew culturally sanctioned homosexual practice at those times to be.

That's why 1 Corinthians 6:9 uses two different words for homosexuals:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,"

It's actually hard to translate exactly because Paul literally made up one of the original Greek terms used. They referred to the older penetrating partner, who was basically looking for someone to sow his wild oats with before he got married because at the time men married much later in life than women did, and the younger receptive partner, who was usually a young teenaged boy. These relationships didn't last very long, were mostly about sex for favors, and were also what we would consider pedophilia. That is the homosexual practice Paul knew of, and that's what he condemned.

If you insist on taking it all absolutely literally, then do you believe we can drop the admonition to go the extra mile since no one is ever actually asked to go a mile these days? Or do we interpret that command to find the principle we can apply today in light of the culture in which it was originally given?

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

I call them as I see them. And in this case, I perceived you as using an ad hominem type of argument which has the purpose of not paying enough attention to the issue at hand while attempting to divert people's attention from the point. I just thought it was easier to say "argument for argument's sake."

With that said, here is the crucial point. God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as Genesis 18:16-33 indicates, even before the incident in 19:8. Consequently, it is much more reasonable to hold that God had pronounced judgment upon these cities for the sins they had already committed, namely, homosexuality, than for a sin they had not yet committed, that is inhospitality.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

About your "invented" word comment. It is well known that the term "homosexuality" was not used at the time that the Bible was written. However, the description of the act(s) of sex between two men or two women is unmistakably revealed to be sin.
*******

This portion of Jerry's comments bears repeating:

"Is there anything wrong with homosexual sex? Many today actually believe that it is fine, if homosexuals just keep it to themselves. Well, what does the Word of God have to say about it?

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

It seems pretty clear what God thinks about the act of gay sex. But that was Old Testament some would say...

Romans 1 gives us an overall description of the fate of those who reject God and His salvation through Jesus Christ...

26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting."

*******

I would like to add here that in the book of Leviticus chapter 15:1-33, we read that this portion of Scripture discusses bodily emissions from both males and females. In each case, there are two types of emissions. The first type is pathological, though the diseases involved are not specified. These required a sin offering in addition to washing with water. The second type is sexual. These required only washing and did not require a sin offering which is a way of saying that sex itself is not sinful.

But notice one more thing. The ONLY sexual relationship mentioned there that doesn't require a sin offering or sacrifice of an animal is between a man and a woman.

Go over to Leviticus 18. There, it is listed what "unlawful sexual relations" are. Many included there involve laws against certain types of heterosexual sex. These were forbidden not only for holiness sake, but also because many could cause devastating diseases. There are those that are listed as detestable and abominations. Verse 22 specifically states: "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." The NKJV calls it an abomination. The rest of the chapter tells those people who are to be God's people and "set apart" from the pagan culures around them to not defile themselves in any of these ways.

Leviticus 18:24-30:
24 'Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 'Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.'"

*******
Jerry continues:

And later we read that homosexuals will not enter in to Heaven unless they repent of their homosexual sins and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I Corinthians 6:9-11

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Again in I Timothy 1:10

10for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

I think the Bible is pretty clear, don't you? The problem isn't with homosexuality exclusively. You can replace that sin with any from the list, it simply doesn't matter. Sin is sin is sin! That is the key to this whole thing. However, the elusion to the days of Lot by Jesus Christ, and the delusion that is spreading in the world today are unmistakably linked to the homosexual lifestyle. Thus it is the issue that needs to be dealt with today.

*******

Yes. As born-agains Christians our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. But Jesus told us that he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. This is for our sakes.

Christ speaking:

Matthew 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (emphasis added)


Many Scriptures admonish us by using the term "God forbid" for willfully continuing in ANY sin that we know is wrong.

Romans 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.



Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.



Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.



Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Boo said...

"I call them as I see them. And in this case, I perceived you as using an ad hominem type of argument which has the purpose of not paying enough attention to the issue at hand while attempting to divert people's attention from the point. I just thought it was easier to say "argument for argument's sake.""

Please show me where I have used ad hominem attacks and I will apologize.

"With that said, here is the crucial point. God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as Genesis 18:16-33 indicates, even before the incident in 19:8. Consequently, it is much more reasonable to hold that God had pronounced judgment upon these cities for the sins they had already committed, namely, homosexuality, than for a sin they had not yet committed, that is inhospitality."

Only if you read that into it. Ezekiel claims they were greedy and didn't share their great wealth, but that's not in Genesis, so obviously that sin was already there. From Lot's conversation with the angels when they first came into the city, it sounds like the greed and violence and lack of hospitality was an ongoing problem. It wouldn't make sense for the whole city population to just suddenly and spontaneously decide to violently attack travelers.

Boo said...

"About your "invented" word comment. It is well known that the term "homosexuality" was not used at the time that the Bible was written. However, the description of the act(s) of sex between two men or two women is unmistakably revealed to be sin."

The original greek terms that Paul used in the passage were malakoi and arsenokoitai. The former translates roughly as "effeminate" or "soft" and the latter is apparently a term Paul coined himself by joining the words for "male bed." The overall point is that you have to understand the context the authors of the Bible were writing in. What they knew of homosexual behavior was sacred prostitution in the temples of pagan gods and young men having affairs with younger boys until they were older and established enough to get married. That those particular expressions of homosexual behavior were sinful does not mean that all homosexual behavior must necessarily be sinful any more than all heterosexual behavior is not sinful.

You can't just say "it's God's Word" and leave it at that, you have to know what it's actually talking about. You have to interpret. A strict reading of 1 Timothy 2 says you shouldn't even have this blog, since men might read it and be spiritually instructed by a woman. I doubt you interpret it that way, tho.

Christinewjc said...

Boo stated:
"You can't just say "it's God's Word" and leave it at that, you have to know what it's actually talking about. You have to interpret."

Interpreted by whom? You in 2005? Or Biblical Scholars who have agreed for hundreds of years what the original intent of the writers was, is and ever shall be?


Boo stated: "A strict reading of 1 Timothy 2 says you shouldn't even have this blog, since men might read it and be spiritually instructed by a woman. I doubt you interpret it that way, tho."

Have you ever heard of the concept that "Scripture interprets Scripture?" Here is an example on the subject of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

"To understand these verses, we must understand the situation in which Paul and Timothy worked. In first-century Jewish culture, women were not allowed to study. When Paul said that women should learn in quietness and full submission, he was offering them an amazing new opportunity. Paul did not want the Ephesian women to teach because they didn't yet have enough knowledge or experience. The Ephesian church had a particular problem with false teachers. Evidently the women were especially susceptible to the false teachings (2 Timothy 3:1-9), because they did not yet have enough Biblical knowledge to discern the truth. In addition, some of the women were apparently flaunting their newfound Christian freedom by wearing inappropriate clothing (2:9). Paul was telling Timothy not to put anyone (in this case, women) into a position of leadership who was not yet mature in the faith (see 5:22). The same principle applies to churches today (see the note about 3:6 below).

Some interpret the passage of 2:12 to mean that women should never teach in the assembled church; however, commentators point out that Paul did not forbid women from ever teaching. Paul's commended co-worker, Priscilla, taught Apollos, the great preacher (Acts 18:24-26). In addition, Paul frequently mentioned other women who held positions of responsibility in the church. Phoebe worked in the church (Romans 16:1). Mary, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were the Lord's workers (Romans 16:6, 12), as were Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2). Paul was very likely prohibiting the Ephesian women, not all women, form teaching for the reasons already stated above.

In Paul's reference to women being silent, the word silent expresses an attitude of quietness and composure. (A different Greek word is usually used to convey "complete silence.") In addition, Paul himself acknowledges that women publicly prayed and prophesied (1 Corinthians 11:5). Apparently, however, the women in the Ephesian church were abusing their newly acquired Christian freedom. Because theese women were new converts, they did not yet have the necessary experience, knowledge, or Christian maturity to teach those who already had extensive Scriptural education.

1 Timothy 3:6 - He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

Younger believers who are selected for office need to beware of the damaging effects of pride. Pride can seduce our emotions and cloud our reason. It can make those who are immature susceptible to the influence of unscrupulous people. Pride and conceit were the devil's downfall, and he uses pride to trap others."

Reference: Life Application Bible NIV commentaries.

Boo said...

That was exactly my point. You just made my argument about gays and scripture for me. To understand the condemnation, you have to understand the culture that Paul was writing in and what he understood of homosexual behavior. Temple prostitution and pedophilia bad, loving committed relationships no mention.