Today is Tame Compared to What it Will Become

My blog post title today comes from an email that I received from Dr. David Jeremiah of Turning Point Ministries.  His words contain both warnings to the lost and good news for all who love the Lord Jesus Christ.

The incredible moral depravity, corruption and scandals, violence, terrorism and all the rest of the turmoil that we are  currently experiencing wasn't even imaginable thirteen years ago.  But what has come to fruition now has been "worked on" by the arbiters of evil for over 50 years - most of my lifetime.  Being of the "baby boomer" generation, I might possibly have a better vantage point (IMHO) regarding history (rather than individuals of the Generation X or Millennials) via the education I received about WWII and all that has happened up to and including this current day.  Public education is not the same as when I was in grades K-12!  Social indoctrination is paramount in the liberal mindset of most educators today.

Being a student of the Bible for over 22 years also helps to give me great insight, knowledge, and wisdom into the ancient past as recorded in God's Word.  It is the gift that keeps on giving because one has never "arrived" as a student of the Bible.  There is always much more to learn!

God's revealed Plan for man's salvation through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is easy enough for a child to understand and comprehend.  But the more a Christian studies the Bible, the more is revealed through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to our minds and hearts.

The prophecies that Christ has already fulfilled is proof enough.  And we can have hope and confidence that He will fulfill all the rest as we speed closer and closer towards the culmination of history on this earth.  End times prophesy is being fulfilled right before our very own eyes!  We don't know everything - because only God knows all; however, we have enough through God's Living Word - Jesus Christ; and His written Word, the Scriptures, to inform us of what we need to know this side of heaven and what will happen in the end times all the way through to eternity.

To be honest, I don't know how people cope with all that is going on in this world without knowing Jesus Christ and the peace that surpasses all understanding that he gives believers! When we repent and ask Him into our individual hearts to be Lord and Savior of our lives the scales fall off of our eyes and truth that may have been previously veiled to us becomes crystal clear! 

When a person thinks that this fallen world is "all that there is" and death leads to nothingness, I wonder why they would even think that their lives have any meaning at all?  I know...it's a devastating thought and difficult question.  But really, what, may I ask, is ultimately the purpose of one's life if one believes that his/her body, soul, and spirit stays in the grave at death?

The so-called "victories" that secular humanists are celebrating that recently occurred via the U.S. Supreme Court decisions to strike down both DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California's Proposition 8 (marriage is the union of one man and one woman - which was passed by 7 million CA voters in 2008) is just more evidence of the moral depravity that has gripped this nation due to lawlessness, government corruption, activist judges, and judicial fiat.

I have shared what the Bible tells us regarding homosexual behavior and the aberrant idea of same-sex "marriage" in several former posts here at this blog.  The list* of additional links on this topic at the end of this post will help readers understand what God's Word has to say about these matters.  Remember, these are not my ideas - THEY ARE GOD'S IDEAS regarding this topic.

There HAD TO BE AN IMPORTANT REASON why God led many writers of Scripture to include grave warnings about the abomination of "men lying with men," and "women lying with women" sexually.   God knew that such acts would "take them over" and bring them away from any sense for the need to repent of such sins; and thus He "gave them over" to their sinful behavior.



Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Rom 1:27 Likewise 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.

Rom 1:28 And 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;


Of course, homosexual behavior is not the only sin that destroys a person's chances for repentance when it goes un-confessed, so too are many other sins:


Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[fn] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[fn] unmerciful;


Inevitably, those who think that homosexuality is "normal, natural, and desirable," would object to all that is written in this blog post.  In fact, they would most likely label me as a "bigot," "homophobic," "unloving," "hateful,"  etc. because they don't WANT to believe or understand what is written in the Scriptures. 

But consider this. 

All people instinctively know that murder is wrong...right?  [Well...except for the pro-abortion advocates and satanic criminals.]  If I had written this blog post warning about the danger of NOT CONFESSING AND REPENTING OF MURDER...perhaps I would not have the same epithets hurled at me. 

The difference is, one sin is elevated over and above [murder] the other [homosexual behavior] as being more heinous.  Or, in some minds, such sexual behavior is not even considered a sin.  However, I would tell them that God our Creator made us...and He made us male and female with purposeful sexual bonds designed to be in  a one man with one woman marriage.  He has given each of us certain abilities, gifts, and God-given purpose in our lives.  When we reject exactly how and why we were specifically made, then our lives often end up in grief, disaster, and turmoil.   The rules given [like the Ten Commandments and the list of aberrant behaviors to be avoided in  the book of Leviticus and elsewhere] are there to protect us from satan's [the thief] influence and keep us from disease, deformity and premature physical death as well as the ultimate eternal death [separation from God forever] of the soul. 

Such admonitions are there too as Jesus stated, "to give you [us] life and to have it more abundantly." 

Jhn 10:10

“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

We have a choice to accept or reject such rules.  But rejection with the intention of impenitence  would mean separation from God FOREVER in eternity. 

 Is it worth it?? 

Only you can decide...

Paul completes Romans 1:

Rom 1:32

who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Jhn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.


For more information, please see this page: Becoming a Christian.


Now, on to Dr. David Jeremiah's powerful message.


God Bless,

~ Christine

*******

Dear Friend,

You turn on the television and see incredible moral depravity — not only on display, but celebrated. You read the news and find yet another incident of corruption and scandal, violence, and terrorism. You look at the world and witness astonishing turmoil, as new forms of evil are seemingly invented daily.

Yet imagine this: our world today is tame compared to what it will become.

Though it may seem that there are no restraints in our world, the Holy Spirit is actually acting as a restraining influence right now … holding back the dark, satanic tide of perversion and lawlessness.

But the world continues to beat against this dam — begging, practically demanding, to be given over completely to its own wickedness. As Paul writes to Timothy, "… but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth …" (2 Timothy 4:3-4, NKJV).

The end is fast approaching. During the Tribulation, God will remove the holy barriers He has set up in the world and essentially "give them what they've asked for."

It will be terrifying to live in those last days … Horrific devastation. Uninhibited violence. Massive earthquakes. Rampant immorality. Intense wildfire. Global chaos.

But I have good news for you — and for all who love the Lord:

We will not be here.

Followers of Christ will disappear from the face of the earth, instantly and without warning, in the Rapture. Those who are taken in this event will be spared the trauma of death and the impending disasters that will occur when the Tribulation breaks out.

But being spared from this danger will not be the main source of our joy in the Rapture —

— rather, finally being with the Savior we love so much will be the cause of our celebration. As the Bible describes it, Jesus will descend into the clouds, and all believers, living and dead, will suddenly meet Him in the air.

So, even though we see the world spiraling down on a path to self-destruction, we take comfort in Christ's own words: "Let not your heart be troubled … I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:1, 3, NKJV).

God bless you,

David Jeremiah

P.S.   Please remember to listen to this week's The Handwriting on the Wall radio broadcasts and watch the Living With Confidence in a Chaotic World Television broadcasts. And you can find even more answers to your questions on the Rapture, Tribulation and other Bible prophecies when you order a copy of The Handwriting on the Wall book. TURNING POINT WITH DR. DAVID JEREMIAH PO Box 3838, San Diego, CA 92163 1-877-998-0222 David Jeremiah's Website

*******


  Hat tip:  Dr. David Jeremiah of Turning Point Ministries



*Additional Reading:

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

The Times of the Signs - The Days of Lot

 

*******

 

Saturday, September 02, 2006

The Spiritual Significance of this Cultural Battle

 

*******

 

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Jesus said, "As In the Days of Noah."

*******

 

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The "Days of Noah" Are Here

 

*******

 

Friday, January 16, 2009

Inaugural Malignant Narcissism

 

 

*******

 

Friday, August 06, 2010

The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem

 

*******

 

Monday, June 27, 2011

"As In The Days Of Noah" Revisited [Update!]

 

*******

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

*******

 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

True Discernment: Jesus, The Days of Noah, and Same Sex Marriage [UPDATE!!]

Note:  This post contains a link to Obama's intentions of repealing DOMA.

 

Excerpt:

 

Obama claims to be Christian. But almost everything he does in his political life turns out to be the most startling, anti-Christian, anti-Bible, anti-Christ, anti-moral-values types of moves that are typical of those who hold to political expediency over true faith, convictions, and obedience to the God of the Bible.   Obama would go so far over the cliff that he has announced his intention of repealing The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)!

 

 

*******

Last, but certainly not least is the following  post that helps readers discern the signs of the times:

 

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Discerning the Signs of the Times

 

New "Rationing Board" Threatens Health Care Access in America

Dear Readers,


This is a CRUCIAL SUBJECT so PLEASE READ and share with everyone you know! Recall how the media of mass deception mocked Sarah Palin for her concern about the "death panels" written in the Obamacare bill? She was CORRECT FOLKS!

Sarah Palin's Face Book Page Notes: Lies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later; It’s Time to Take Back the 20!



Excerpt:

And remember when the Obama administration said they would not be “rationing care” in the future? That ol’ “death panels” thing I wrote about last year? That was before Obamacare was passed. Once it passed, they admitted there was going to be rationing after all. There has to be. The reality of Obamacare is that it enshrines what the New York Times called “The Power of No” – the government’s power to say no to your request for treatment of the people you love. The fact that the president used a recess appointment to push through the nomination of Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tells you all you need to know about this administration’s intentions. After all, Berwick is the man who said, “The decision is not whether we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

By the way, when the administration was talking about that independent board that has the statutory power to decide which categories of treatment are worthy of funding based on efficiency calculations (that, again, sounded to me like a panel of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions about your loved ones – which, again, is what I referred to as a “death panel”), it was another opportunity for Americans to hear the truth about Obamacare’s intentions.

So, yes, those rationing “death panels” are there, and so are the tax increases that the president also promised were “absolutely not” in his bill. (Aren’t you tiring of the untruths coming from this White House and the liberals in Congress?) When the state of Florida filed a challenge to Obamacare on the basis that the mandates in the bill are unconstitutional, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the suit by citing the Anti-Injunction Act, which blocks courts from interfering with the federal government’s ability to collect taxes. Yes, taxes! Once the bill was passed it was no longer politically inconvenient for the Obama administration to admit that it makes no difference whether the payment is a tax or a penalty because it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner.” The National Taxpayer Advocate has already warned that “Congress must provide sufficient funding” to allow the IRS to collect this new tax. Pretty soon we’ll be paying taxes just to make it possible for the IRS to collect all the additional taxes under Obamacare! Seems as if this is another surprise that the public found out about after the bill was rammed through.

There is a Christian ministry called Truth In Action which has set up a petition to sign at the website. You will find the petition link at the end of the following article:

Truth In Action: New Rationing Board Threatens Health Care Access In America.

This is a ministry that deserves support and I encourage everyone to read about the new "rationing board" that threatens health care access in America. Donate just $5 or more and receive a booklet: Ration Care: The Powerful Unelected Board that Threatens Healthcare in America

Dear Children, let us not love with word or tongue but with actions and in truth. - 1 John 3:18 NIV

I was so glad when Michele Bachmann was in the race for the presidency because she kept this issue front and center at all of the debates. Since her exit, the debates that I have witnessed have not mentioned the need to repeal Obamacare!


Also, please read the entire issue of the Impact Newsletter [PDF].


On page two, there is an article that covers why newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE UPCOMING CASE!


Copy of article:

Why Justice Kagan Should Withdraw
from Health Case

Should a U.S. Supreme Court justice pass judgment on a law she is known to support, one for which she apparently took a role in devising a legal defense strategy?

That’s a question many people are asking about Elena Kagan, who was U.S. Solicitor General when health care reform became law. Kagan’s “Simply amazing…” email to a colleague on March 21, 2010, celebrating the imminent passage of the health care restructuring bill, demonstrates her support for the law in which she is about to sit in judgment.

“...definitely...involved”

But there’s more. A Jan. 8, 2010 email from her deputy, Neal Katyal, states that “Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues [legal defense of health care reform].

Kagan was also copied on a March 18, 2010 email which outlined privileged information regarding the government’s legal strategy to defend the law.

Federal law requires a judge to withdraw from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” We believe that reasonable standard has been met in Justice Kagan’s case.

Please read, sign and return the enclosed petition to Justice Kagan, asking her to withdraw herself from the case.

Example of petition to print out, sign, and mail:

A PETITION TO THE HONORABLE ELENA KAGAN,

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

Dear Justice Kagan:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Your past involvement as an advocate for this law while Solicitor General, as evidenced by emails released as a consequence of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, makes it clear that you have a conflict of interest and a legal duty to recuse yourself from hearing this case.

Your view of the law itself is clear from your email to your colleague Laurence Tribe on March 21, 2010, celebrating its imminent passage. You also commissioned your deputy, Neal Katyal, to participate in strategy sessions within the Obama administration to defend the law and had access too privileged information regarding that legal strategy.

God's Word states that judges are to be impartial: "You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality..." (Deuteronomy 16:19 NKJV). (bold mine)

Federal law states that a judge who has "served in governmental employment" must recuse if she has "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." The law, 28 USC 455, also requires a judge to withdraw from "any proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

That standard is more than met by the information contained in the few emails released by the U.S. Justice Department. With all due respect, Justice Kagan, you have a clear duty to recuse yourself in this case. Should you fail to do so, it will deeply stain your reputation and that of the Court. For all these reasons, we implore you to withdraw from this case.

Sincerely,

[sign name and include address]

*******

Hat Tips to all links.

Judges or Voters?

While reading several articles over at World Net Daily, a thought came to mind about two extremely important and pressing issues involving voters vs. current judicial challenges. What will each decision mean for our country?

There is now a U.S. Supreme Court 'conference' review scheduled for December 5th in which a lawsuit has been filed for proof of Barack's citizenship - challenging his name on the N.J. ballot.

There has also been a lawsuit filed and accepted which is to be heard by the CA Supreme Court, challenging the passage of Proposition 8 here in California.

Plus, there is another article which asks the question: Prop. 8 hinges on who decides: judges or voters?

So, if Proposition 8 gets overturned by the CA Supreme Court - all of the liberals, homosexuals, Democrats, friends of homosexuals, supporters of the homosexual agenda and their financiers - will inevitably be found dancing in the street and celebrating. Four judges will have then (for a second time) overturned millions of votes cast by California voters in the election for the passage of YES ON PROPOSITION 8.

I wonder.

What would be be reaction if the U.S. Supreme Court examines Barack Obama's vault length COLB, discovers that he was born in Kenya, and overturns the election of Obama because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America - which is both required by law and in our U.S. Constitution?


HT: World Net Daily

Obama Sides With Radical Islamists

The magnitude of difference between the two candidates running in our presidential election could not be more stark! After reading the statements of both Obama and McCain regarding the horrible Supreme Court 5-4 decision to allow Gitmo detainees the right to be tried in civilian courts, we can clearly see what a flawed, unfortunate, and terrible direction Obama would take this country if [God forbid!!]elected in November.

Obama's statement:

Barack Obama statement on the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today extending civilian legal protections to terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

Um...er...earth to Obama? Foreign terrorists caught in battle against our forces during war have never been eligible for "habeas corpus"! They are not covered by the Constitution of the United States of America. So...what "rule of law" are you referring to?

Ah! Probably European law? Or, more likely, the law opinion of that do-nothing, waste of money, corruption filled United Nations?

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. But I can read and comprehend the fact that this ongoing war against radical Islamic terrorism is very different from any other type of war that the U.S. (and, the world) has fought in before. It requires much more stringent forms of protection for our nation and people!!! Especially when it affects the lives of our military in harms way!!

From Wikipedia:

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9 which states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

United States federal law affords persons the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus mainly if held by the federal authorities or for violations of the United States Constitution. Habeas corpus petitions are generally argued as ex parte cases. Individual states also afford persons the ability to petition for habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws when held or sentenced by state authorities.
During the Civil War and Reconstruction and during the War on Terrorism the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus was substantially curtailed for persons accused of engaging in certain conduct.

Earth to Obama! Let's read this portion again:

“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. ”

John McCain's statement:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.

Let's not forget that four Supreme Court judges rendered dissenting votes!

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Speaking of "the rule of law" as Obama put it, how hypocritical is it for someone who has had ties with some of the worst characters in our nation to even know what it means to genuinely follow the rule of law?

But that's another topic.

Apparently, there is an investigation going on that might reveal, once and for all, the REAL OBAMA! Keep your eyes and ears open come this Wednesday, June 18th.

HT: RCP

CA Rogue Judges & Their Judicial Fiat

Below is a summary of one CA dissenting judge's written opinion about the four rogue judges and their homosexual pseudo-marriage decision:

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, 4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.

Written by BAXTER, J

HT: Stacy Harp for summary.

CA Extreme Ct's Shameful Decision

Wrote the following in the comment section of this post last night:

Speaking of pastors having the free speech right to state Bible verses - which state unequivocally that homosexual behavior is sinful - tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will hand down it's decision on whether or not to overturn Proposition 22 (which was voted on by the people in 2000 to recognize that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in CA) and allow homosexual "marriage."

Knowing how liberal the members of the court are, I would not be a bit surprised if they decide to ignore and trump the votes of 60% of the people in order to push their own ideological agreement with those proponents of same-sex "marriage" on the public in this state.

I pray that Prop. 22 ISN'T overturned, but I fear that this liberal leftist court will not be able to resist the opportunity to do so.

If they do such a thing, it may be "legal" in CA to "marry" a person of the same sex; but it will NEVER BE MORALLY RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. God's laws DO NOT CHANGE!

May 14, 2008 10:33:00 PM PDT

With the CA Extreme Court's "making new law" decision, CA has trumped the vote of the majority of people in this state who voted by 60% margin back in 2000 that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman in the state of California.

How ironic that this Extreme Court has done exactly what John McCain said in his speech this morning about radical judges "legislating from the bench." This court has overturned the will of the people in California.

This unrighteous decision just proves that the Alliance Defense Fund is correct in reclaiming pastor's rights of free speech in the pulpit. Getting that passed will be of the utmost importance in order to prevent so-called "hate crimes" laws - that are currently being pushed into law by homosexual groups and their supporters - which are designed to criminalize any voices that share the fact that homosexual behavior as sinful, shameful, physically, emotionally and spiritually dangerous. Getting pastors who follow biblical morality (and, of course, preach against and oppose homosexual behavior) silenced, is the final goal of the homosexual agenda. If they can, literally, shut all opposition down, then they (believe) that they have won not only the battle, but the entire war against God's Word and proper moral behavior.

There are two people who recently presented strong arguments against homosexual behavior.

1. Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon on February 10, 2008 is called Marriage, The Image of God. Go to the link, scroll down to that date, and you can either watch the video or listen to the podcast.


2. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. - who recently wrote An Open Letter to a University President regarding the Suspension of a Black Female Administrator Who Challenged a Comparison between Homosexual Practice and Being Black.

Also see Dr. Gagnon's answers to questions that he has received regarding homosexuality.

[Note: I respectfully disagree with Dr. Gagnon's view that "salvation can be lost." Dr. Gagnon admits that Christians can disagree on this issue.]

Here is the letter and response:

A Question about Eternal Security and Sexual Immorality
From: Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Robert Gagnon


Dear Dr. Gagnon:

Even as one who has learned a great deal from you through your articles, as a Presbyterian minister I must take exception to one aspect of your teaching regarding whether a lady would go to hell if she is in a lesbian relationship [RG: see email below]. Your answer, as I saw it, stated that it wasn't a given but a possibility seemingly based solely on this one thing. Homosexual activity is a sin (it's ironic that those who view that portion of Leviticus 18 as no longer relevant do see all the other teachings there on sinful relationships there as still in effect - incest and bestiality to name a couple).

However: Heaven is based upon what he did on the cross, and our acceptance of Him as Savior. Fornication, Fathers Not Being Involved in the Lives of Their Children, Lying, Divorce, Not Helping Those in Need if You Can, for example, are also sins, but no one seems to suggest that those who continue to lie from time to time, who left pregnant women to raise kids on their own, or who are who are divorced and remarried are all in danger of hell. Jesus does call them to change their ways as part of following Him and He always will, but to say that the promise of eternal life may now be null and void even if they truly believe (albeit erroneously) that God says homosexual activity based on orientation as okay seems extreme.

Let me be clear. I do not excuse these activities or homosexual activity. Having Jesus as Lord means having him as Lord in all of your life. I know that passage in Galatians 5:19-21. I am angered that we in the PC(USA) seem to told not just to acknowledge homosexual behavior but to celebrate it. All are sins that I confront equally as a child of God. When I hear the suggestion, though, that the Lord puts this one sin in a separate category regarding eternal judgment, raises concerns for me that we've gone from one sandy foundation to another another (Matthew 7). James 2:8-13- "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it." All Christians are called to be different. All Christians also continue to be sinners, too.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted what you stated there. Is this what you are saying?

Mark

Dr. Gagnon's response:

From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:50 PM
To: Mark

Dear Mark,

The question you raise has to do with the larger question of eternal security, classically defined as “once saved, always saved.” I do not subscribe to it because I don’t believe that Jesus or any NT author, including Paul, subscribed to it. There are literally dozens of texts that make this point. The thought here is not that individuals must merit their salvation but rather that the absence of transformation or the presence of serial unrepentant immoral behavior of an extreme sort demonstrates a fatal deficiency in faith, i.e., in not letting Jesus live in one by grace. When Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that sexually immoral persons, including those who engage in incest, adultery, and man-male intercourse (and by extension lesbian intercourse) shall not inherit eternal life he is not making this statement only about unbelievers. Both the context of the Christian incestuous man in ch. 5 and the analogy of a Christian, a person who is really and truly joined to Jesus, having sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 make clear, in my opinion, that he also has in view believers who live immoral lives. It is because the incestuous man’s eternal life is at risk that Paul takes the extreme measure of putting him on church discipline, in the hopes that he might be saved on the Day of the Lord.

Thus also he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in the earliest extant New Testament document:



For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)

And to the Galatian Christians:

The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (porneia), sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), licentiousness (aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)

In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep concern that

I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)

Mourning is mourning over death, the possible loss of eternal life for believers who live in this manner. Later, in Rom 6:19-22 and 8:12-14, Paul urged Roman believers to reverse the trend of the immoral life described in Rom 1:24-27, otherwise loss of eternal life would ensue:

For just as you presented your members as slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) and to [other types of] lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness (or: sanctification). For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to [the demands of] righteousness. What fruit did you have at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed, because the end (or: outcome) of those things is death. But now, since you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness (or: sanctification), and the end (or: outcome) is eternal life.

The message of Ephesians is similar:

[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . . who . . . have given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia). . . . Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind . . . must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral person (pornos) or sexually unclean person (akathartos) . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience. (Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6)

And there are many other texts. For me not to say what I said would leave out the whole counsel of God. The deception that a number of the above texts refer to is deceiving oneself into thinking that, as a Christian, who could continue in serial unrepentant sin of an egregious sort (like adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, sex with prostitutes) and get away with it. It’s not limited to same-sex intercourse. The divorce/remarriage analogy is not a good one, both because Scripture does not treat it as serious an offense (though serious) and because it tends not to be serial behavior (unlike repeated acts of homosexual practice). I would agree, too, that regular, particular grievous non-sexual forms of behavior could also get one excluded from the kingdom of heaven even if one confesses Jesus as Lord.

I realize that Christians have differing views on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture itself that loss of salvation is real and possible for believers. In that sense I am always reforming in the direction of Scripture, or at least trying to do so here.

I hope this helps,

Rob

I would argue that people who do not genuinely confess and repent of their sins before accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over their lives my not genuinely be saved in the first place. Therefore, their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Once genuinely born again, one cannot lose their salvation. However, a nominal or willfully sinning person who has not made a true commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, but has simply given themselves the label of "Christian" may NOT have been genuinely converted. Jesus said, "you must be born again." He also said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Those who have not made the heart commitment (meaning, not just an intellectual thought that Jesus might be the Savior), may not have been born again through Jesus Christ in the first place. Such people are in grave danger when Jesus, who knows each and every individuals heart and soul, goes through what the Scriptures tell us is "the separation of the sheep and the goats."

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:


Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Note Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 25:32-33

II. The appearing of all the children of men before him (v. 32); Before him shall be gathered all nations. Note, The judgment of the great day will be a general judgment. All must be summoned before Christ’s tribunal; all of every age of the world, from the beginning to the end of time; all of every place on earth, even from the remotest corners of the world, most obscure, and distant from each other; all nations, all those nations of men that are made of one blood, to dwell on all the face of the earth.

III. The distinction that will then be made between the precious and the vile; He shall separate them one from another, as the tares and wheat are separated at the harvest, the good fish and the bad at the shore, the corn and chaff in the floor. Wicked and godly here dwell together in the same kingdoms, cities, churches, families, and are not certainly distinguishable one from another; such are the infirmities of saints, such the hypocrisies of sinners, and one event to both: but in that day they will be separated, and parted for ever; Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, Mal. 3:18. They cannot separate themselves one from another in this world (1 Co. 5:10), nor can any one else separate them (ch. 13:29); but the Lord knows them that are his, and he can separate them. This separation will be so exact, that the most inconsiderable saints shall not be lost in the crowd of sinners, nor the most plausible sinner hid in the crowd of saints (Ps. 1:5), but every one shall go to his own place. This is compared to a shepherd’s dividing between the sheep and the goats; it is taken from Eze. 34:17, Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle. Note, 1. Jesus Christ is the great Shepherd; he now feeds his flock like a shepherd, and will shortly distinguish between those that are his, and those that are not, as Laban divided his sheep from Jacob’s, and set three days’ journey between them, Gen. 30:35, 36. 2. The godly are like sheep—innocent, mild, patient, useful: the wicked are like goats, a baser kind of animal, unsavoury and unruly. The sheep and goats are here feeding all day in the same pasture, but will be coted at night in different folds. Being thus divided, he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left, v. 33. Christ puts honour upon the godly, as we show respect to those we set on our right hand; but the wicked shall rise to everlasting shame, Dan. 12:2. It is not said that he shall put the rich on his right hand, and the poor on his left; the learned and noble on his right hand, and unlearned and despised on his left; but the godly on his right hand, and the wicked on his left. All other divisions and subdivisions will then be abolished; but the great distinction of men into saints and sinners, sanctified and unsanctified, will remain for ever, and men’s eternal state will be determined by it. The wicked took up with left-handed blessings, riches and honour, and so shall their doom be.

HT: Miles McPherson: Marriage, The Image of God

Dr. Robert Gagnon

Blue Letter Bible's Matthew Henry Commentary

*******
Update:

Additional posts on this topic:

Americans For Truth: CWA: California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Excerpt:

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

“On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Bad "Hate Crimes" Laws Silence Biblical Free Speech

I have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of "hate crimes" laws and how they would subsequently destroy free speech rights for quite some time now. I warned that such bogus laws would target, and attempt to completely destroy, the free speech rights of Christians who desire to protest against the militant agenda of homosexual radical groups.

Now, in this spurious, unconstitutional ruling, we see how radical, activist judges can illegally use their power in order to punish those with whom the secular progressives disagree! Can anyone agree that "I told you so" is in order here? In addition, as the article points out, we must ask what type of freedom of speech would be next to go?? What is this? Gay agenda anarchy or what??

This is more than just stifling of free speech. It is also an attempt for the judicial part of our government to side with the liberal left agenda and prohibit the use of the Bible and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while, at the same time promoting an illegal double whammy of pressing, and forcing, a kind of "thought police" mentality towards homosexual issues in public places.

This is outrageous, people!!

Could you imagine if a conservative judge (not that one actually ever would!) decided to squelch the free speech rights of the anti-war activists a few weeks ago because he/she didn't like their message?? Again, not that such a judge ever would do that, but can you now recognize how this illustrates the total hypocrisy of the wacky, liberal judge who just did that very same thing to the Christian group?

I sincerely hope that the Alliance Defense Fund gets ahold of this case on appeal. This was truly an absolute travesty of justice!

Christine

*******


Wednesday, February 14, 2007

TESTING THE FAITH

'Philadelphia 11' told 'gays' limited speech
Judge's ruling says permit allows biblical messages to be restricted

Posted: February 14, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A new federal court decision in the case of the Philadelphia Eleven could send Christians' free speech rights another step towards extinction, according to group members who have been told police officers had a right to silence their biblical messages at a public homosexual festival.

The decision came in a civil rights lawsuit brought by members of that team, including Repent America director Michael Marcavage, who sued the city and a homosexual-festival sponsor after group members were cleared of criminal charges for their actions at the 2004 "Gay Pride" public street festival in the downtown area.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel dismissed their civil rights claim, concluding that a "permit" granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists' message on public streets.

"The law requires the police to control the crowd and to deal with those acting disorderly, not tell us that we're not permitted to be there," Marcavage said.

The judge's precedent would allow police to arrest anyone at any public gathering simply because they have what the judge called "a contrary message," raising speculation that Republicans could be arrested at a Democrat "festival" and competitors could be arrested at a commercially-sponsored "festival."

Marcavage called it a restriction on time, place and manner. But in the application to a commercial festival sponsorship, it could be assumed that having a discussion about Chevies at a Ford-sponsored event could be prohibited.

"You can't talk about Chevies; you couldn't even have Chevies parked on the streets," he said.
"It is without question that Judge Stengel's decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a 'permitting scheme' can be used by police and event organizers to 'exclude persons expressing contrary messages' in public areas and at public events," Marcavage said.

"It is for this reason that his ruling is especially troubling and must be overturned," he continued. "Christians must be free to speak the truths of God's Word, warn the wicked, and to preach the Gospel in the public square without interference from government, and therefore, we will continue to battle for these God-given liberties by appealing this decision."

He said the appeal will be pursued in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, because otherwise Christians will be "left in a position here that will affect the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, because this decision will be binding."

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, campaigns against such "hate crimes" and "hate speech" plans, and is warning there actually is a federal plan that could be used to make criminals of any Christian who speaks Biblical messages.

"The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act is now before the House Judiciary Committee. If it's signed into federal law, the Philly Eleven incident won't be a freak injustice of American history. Instead, it will be the unheeded first raindrop of a downpour of anti-Christian arrests and lawsuits submerging Christianity in the years ahead," Pike has written.

He said the dismissal of the civil rights complaint means that "the Philly Eleven were wrong in exercising free speech in what had become a no-free speech zone."

He said the federal plan "would eventually allow government 'thought police' to push aside states' rights in law enforcement. Such laws would allow federal indictment of Christian 'haters' in every state of the Union…"

"It would become a federal crime … to show bias against protected groups [including] homosexuals. However, deviant groups such as witches, Satanists, pedophiles, abortionists, and even 'sinners' could quickly catch a ride on the bandwagon of federal protection from the 'hate' of biblically oriented criticism," he said.

The U.S. requirement that there is physical evidence of a crime before an arrest is made could be abandoned, and the only criteria of guilt in a hate crimes case could be "whether the feelings of a member of a federally protected group have been hurt," he said.

Pike's Hate Laws Exposed website is a primary resource center for information on "anti-hate" laws.

The decision by Stengel granted summary judgment to the city of Philadelphia and "Philly Pride Presents, Inc."

Siding with the defendants, Stengel said police were permitted to discriminate against the Christians because of "safety concerns" coupled with Philly Pride's permit from the city to hold the $10,000 taxpayer-funded celebration of homosexuality on public streets.

The judge couldn't escape the facts that "the activity in question took place in a public forum," and "there is no doubt that the venue for OutFest, a designated section of streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia, was a public place," but despite that he found that through the permit OutFest "was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages."
"Obviously, we are very disappointed," said Ted Hoppe, a lawyer for the Philadelphia Eleven. "We believe that the law clearly supports the rights of the plaintiffs in this case, as well as all individuals, to be able to engage in free speech activities in public streets and sidewalks.

"We do not believe," he continued, "that the fact that there was an event also taking place, even with a permit, diminishes that right."

"I cannot even begin to comprehend what Judge Stengel's thought process was in making this decision," said Marcavage. "This ruling was entirely unexpected considering that all the evidence has been overwhelmingly in our favor, complete with video documentation, not to mention the fact that all 11 of us were vindicated of any wrongdoing in criminal court."

The case dates back to 2004, as WND reported, when on Oct. 10, six men and five women with Repent America, now established as the Philadelphia Eleven, were arrested while ministering on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia during the "OutFest."

Before they were arrested, they had been confronted by a mob of homosexuals calling themselves the "Pink Angels," who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs to block the Christians' message and access to the event. Other screamed obscenities at the Christians.
Philadelphia officers, under the supervision of Chief Inspector James Tiano, a department "liaison to the gay and lesbian community," refused to take any action against the homosexuals over the harassment, instead taking the Christians to jail.

They were there 21 hours before Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham's office charged them with "Ethnic Intimidation" among other counts under the state's "hate crimes law."
Penalties could have ranged to 47 years in prison and fines of $90,000, but Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe dismissed the criminal charges as being without merit. The civil rights lawsuit by the Christians then followed.

What many people found disturbing was the fact that months earlier, Stengel had refused to dismiss the OutFest organizer from the lawsuit, concluding that "Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to infer a conspiracy between the Philly Pride Defendants and the other defendants … to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights."

At that time Hoppe noted that the city's actions "demonstrated a clear hostility toward Repent America and the content of their message."

Repent America is a group that "desires to be in the full Will of God and to adhere entirely to the teachings of the Bible."

"As Christians, we know that there is a literal hell and a lake of fire where the unsaved will burn for all eternity; therefore, we act upon this truth without reservation and GO OUT into the streets and communities of America declaring the Word of God and proclaiming the Good News. We must go out to where the sinners are. We must go to those who would never come into our churches – to the atheists, to the religious, to the self-righteous, to the God-hating and win their souls to Christ," its website says.

"For so long, as followers of Christ, we have allowed Satan to invade our communities through abortuaries, the entertainment and pornography industries, religious institutions, sexually perverse establishments, homosexual parades and other sin celebrations without a word from the Christians therein. God has called us to 'Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression…" (Isaiah 58.1)"

Related special offers:

Sen. Tom Coburn's "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders"
Get Ann's latest and hottest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"
"Betrayed by the Bench"
"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

Previous stories:

'Philly 11' win round against 'gay' group
Philly group to protest 'Outfest' again
Judge drops all charges against Philly Christians
Judge rules against Christians who preached to homosexuals
'Philly 5' win 1 in court
Christian group gets obscene, hateful messages
Hate-crimes law infringes on 1st Amendment?
Benefit concert planned for 'Philadelphia 5'
Motion filed for Philadelphia protesters
'Philadelphia 5' arrests like 'Christian Rodney King'
Homosexuals planned Christian harassment
17-year-old girl part of 'Philadelphia 5'
U.S. attorneys complicit in arrest of Christians?
Philadelphia accused of 'abuse of power'
Prosecutor: Bible is 'fighting words'
City will prosecute Christian protesters
'Philadelphia 11' fighting back
11 Christians arrested at homosexual event

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit WorldNetDaily Article

HT: WorldNetDaily

[ 2/16/07 Update: Good News! The Alliance Defense Fund has agreed to appeal Philadelphia 11 free speech limits!]

*******

In a related matter, just see what the "legalization" and implementation of "gay" marriage would result in if it was passed in all states. Massachusetts parents are having their rights taken away from them in regards to teaching homosexuality in the public schools.

Read this article about the ongoing David Parker case.

Note these excerpts:

The elementary curriculum promoting homosexuality, he said, was specifically intended to change a child's outlook of the world to something that his parents didn't teach him.

An ACLU lawyer, however, told the judge that "it is a tremendous bonus" for children to be given information of which their parents wouldn't approve, and that teaching children homosexuality when their parents' Biblical beliefs do not support that has nothing to do with a violation of religious freedom, according to the MassResistance.org reports.

"David Parker's dilemma … threatens the parental rights and religious freedom of every Massachusetts parent, and indirectly every parent in America," said John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition.

"As the Lexington schools themselves are arguing, the state's right to force pro-homosexuality indoctrination on other people's children arises directly from former Gov. Mitt Romney's nakedly false and unconstitutional declaration that homosexual marriage is now legal."

Note how similar arguments used by homosexual activists in front of The European Human Rights Court led to terrible results against a family in Germany:

The arguments on behalf of homosexuals were remarkably similar to a recent European court's conclusion.

The European Human Rights Court several months ago concluded in a case involving similar objections that parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education and any parental "wish" to have their children grow up without adverse influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance."

That court said a German family had no right to provide homeschooling for their children. The family had argued the public school endangered their children's religion beliefs and violated the family's Christian faith.

Irrelevant, said the court. "The parents' right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience," it said.

"The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the European ruling said.

In Germany, the situation has continued to deteriorate for homeschoolers, with one 15-year-old student recently being taken into custody by a SWAT team and ordered by a judge to a psychiatric ward of a hospital because she was being homeschooled. WND's latest update on that situation has confirmed authorities now have removed the teen from the psych ward, and she has been taken to a location that is being withheld from her parents and lawyer.

Appalled yet???

Check out these previous stories, too:

Previous stories:
'Gay' groups: We have rights to your children!
Families file federal suit over 'gay' readings
Teacher reads 2nd-graders story about 'gay' wedding
District lifts ban on parent over pro-'gay' book
Charges dropped against jailed dad
Trial over pro-'gay' book set to begin
No notice to parents in 'diversity' classes
Dad on trial over homosexual book
Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book

The Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Back in this post, Limpy99 stated:

"I don't understand how the private lives of homosexuals is such a threat to you and your beliefs."

It isn't the private lives of homosexuals that is a threat to me or my beliefs, it is the legalization of the homosexual agenda (meaning, teaching it in schools) and "gay" marriage that is a threat to me, as well as any other parent out there that does not want such sexual liberties taught to their children because it clearly goes against their moral and religious values. What about my, and other Christians religious liberty? If you think that after "gay" marriage, there will be no problems between the two, think again. We don't even have to imagine the conflicts. They are already happening in Massachusetts.

Later in this post, you will have the opportunity to read excerpts from a link that clearly shows that as a result of "gay" marriage being legalized in Massachusetts, the coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty is inevitable. Only one side can win, folks. This article tells us why.

Some points to consider from the article:

"Reading through these and the other scholars' papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead--perhaps because they tended to find it "inconceivable," as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that "a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage." That's a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don't arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a "long way" from equating orientation with race in the law."

I sincerely hope that last comment holds true.

Chai Feldblum gets down to the crux of the matter.

"Not because I was caught up in the panic," she laughs. She'd been thinking through the moral implications of nondiscrimination rules in the law, a lonely undertaking for a gay rights advocate. "Gay rights supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad," Feldblum points out. In employment law, for instance, "we allow discrimination against people who sexually abuse children, and we don't say 'the only question is can they type' even if they can type really quickly."

To get to the point where the law prohibits discrimination, Feldblum says, "there have to be two things: one, a majority of the society believing the characteristic on which the person is being discriminated against is not morally problematic, and, two, enough of a sense of outrage to push past the normal American contract-based approach, where the government doesn't tell you what you can do. There has to be enough outrage to bypass that basic default mode in America. Unlike some of my compatriots in the gay rights movement, I think we advance the cause of gay equality if we make clear there are moral assessments that underlie antidiscrimination laws."

But there was a second reason Feldblum made time for this particular conference. She was raised an Orthodox Jew. She wanted to demonstrate respect for religious people and their concerns, to show that the gay community is not monolithic in this regard.

"It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?" she writes in her Becket paper. "I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?

To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: "When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don't matter."

But IMO, she starts going in the wrong direction with these comments:

"You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time," says Feldblum. She pauses. "Respect doesn't mean that the religious person should prevail in the right to discriminate--it just means demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position."

Then, she sides with the "sexual liberty" gay activists here:

Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

Religious liberty, freedom of association, and freedom of speech all should trump "sexual liberty." "Sexual liberty" may be an evolving matter in secular humanist circles, but I don't think that the framers of our Constitution meant for such a concept to trump what is already written in our founding documents!

Here is a link to The Evangelical Outpost blog where I found the "Banned in Boston" article. I think that if more evangelical Christians read that article, they will be awakened from the disingenuious mantra being espoused by the gay lobby and jolted from the slumber they are currently in regarding the morally relativistic thinking that "gay marriage can't hurt them."

We can vividly see that the legalization of "gay" marriage in Massachusetts has already resulted in several dire consequences against religious liberty in that state. It has already cause Catholic Charities to stop their adoption efforts there because their religious freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom to conduct their work according to the Catholic church's teachings has been eliminated from consideration based on the trumped up "rights" afforded to "sexual liberty" activists.

But there is even more to consider!

Our main arguments for saving traditional marriage:


Marriage is between a man and a woman.


"Marriage" should not be whatever the law says that it is. The covenant relationship of marriage predates the law and the Constitution.


"Love" and "companionship" are not sufficient to define marriage. (If this were true, minor children and adults should be able to marry each other.)


If homosexual marriage is legalized, the floodgates will be opened for other groups of people to marry. By the same logic, we would be forced to allow a man to marry three women (polygamy) or a brother and sister to marry each other (incest) or, ostensibly, we'd have to let a man marry his dog (bestiality). Recently in Australia, a man married his T.V.!


Denying same-sex marriage is not "discrimination." A homosexual person has the same right to marry as a heterosexual person, he/she simply has to marry the opposite sex.


The sexual union of a man and a woman is the only way to naturally reproduce children.


Studies show that children need both a mom and a dad.


"Gay marriage" is either anti-woman or anti-man. It embraces the concept that one of the sexes is not needed for raising children.


"Gay marriage" is not about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It's about the public approval of radically redefining traditional marriage. A public embracing of same-sex marriage affects all of society.


Before society jumps to legalize same-sex marriage, the fact needs to be addressed that, on average, homosexual men die ten years younger than heterosexual men. Perhaps encouraging "gay marriage" is not good policy for health reasons alone.



"Gay marriage" is a social experiment. No civilization in history has ever legalized same-sex marriage.


Our children are the ones who are the "guinea pigs" in this social experiment.


Ultimately, "gay marriage" is simply an attempt by a sub-group of people, identified solely by their sexual conduct, to obtain societal approval of their sexual behaviors.


If we re-define marriage, we will un-define marriage and it will become meaningless.


I could give you links to dozens of articles that would share precisely why redefining marriage would be detrimental to society. There are biblical reasons and secular reasons to not only oppose same-sex marriage in particular, but the affirmation of gay-behavior-indoctrination through public schools, in general.

The experiment of homosexual marriage in the Scandinavian countries proves the fact that marriage, as we now know it, would become more and more irrelevant. The confusion that erupts in the minds of children is a strong factor against it, too.
Want more reasons? It's about dilution, and, we already see the negative results of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Parent's rights to raise their own children as they see fit is being destroyed through intimidation and lawsuits by pro-gay activists in the public schools there.

Enraged Gay activists show up and spew their hatred at Christian ministry events (Like Love Won Out) which are held to help those who want to escape homosexual behavior and attraction.

It has been my experience that despite evidence that backs up my reasons (and the majority of Americans, as well) for wanting to keep the several-thousand-years- old definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman intact, those who oppose us will not change their minds no matter what. It is a battle between ideologies that are polar opposites, and the excuses used by the other side are just that...excuses being used to destroy an institution that all cultures recognize (at one time or another, at least!) and that was originally instituted by God (as evidenced in the Bible).

Even more evidence that same-sex marriage results in chaos.

Just found another perfect example of how parent's (and students!!) beliefs and rights are being usurped by homosexual activism in public schools!

In Canada, their new leader is attempting to correct the current gay-agenda-machine which has become relentless and is threatening the traditional freedoms of religion and speech in that country.

In conclusion, the legalization of "gay" marriage is most definitely a threat to me and my beliefs, as well as the beliefs of millions of Christians and Orthodox Jews.

With that said, if you are still interested in reading more articles, I will do a search at my message board and give you the links. However, if you think that you would never change your mind on this matter anyway, perhaps I should not waste my time researching and sharing such articles. It's up to you.

Hat Tip: The Evangelical Outpost