Called “Bright Life: The Illumination”, the bizarre and dark entertainment event is being headlined by the winner of a reality TV cross dressing show.

But let’s look at it from God’s perspective. He has already spoken on this and the verdict is holy.

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. ” Deuteronomy 22:5

Deuteronomy 22:5 strikes not only at the act of wearing attire of the opposite gender but also at the intent behind it. God’s holy requirements for his people meant that they were not to adopt, approve or practice the customs and religious rituals of inhabitants of the promised land. Notably, the religion of the Canaanites was infused with sexual perversion. It was one of the most sexually vile cultures of antiquity. From History World.org:

The Baalim and the Baalot, gods and goddesses of the Earth, were believed to be the revitalizes of the forces of nature upon which agriculture depended. The revitalization process involved a sacred marriage (hieros gamos), replete with sexual symbolic and actual activities between men, representing the Baalim, and the sacred temple prostitutes (qedeshot), representing the Baalot. Cultic ceremonies involving sexual acts between male members of the agricultural communities and sacred prostitutes dedicated to the Baalim were focused on the Canaanite concept of sympathetic magic. As the Baalim (through the actions of selected men) both symbolically and actually impregnated the sacred prostitutes in order to reproduce in kind, so also, it was believed, the Baalim (as gods of the weather and the Earth) would send the rains (often identified with semen) to the Earth so that it might yield abundant harvests of grains and fruits. Canaanite myths incorporating such fertility myths are represented in the mythological texts of the ancient city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) in northern Syria; though the high god El and his consort are important as the first pair of the pantheon, Baal and his sexually passionate sister-consort are significant in the creation of the world and the renewal of nature.

The UFCM is carrying on the religious sexual idolatry of the Canaanites. And just like the Canaanites, its fairly clear this denomination has no intention of even considering what God says is detestable to him.

If you are confused about so called transgenderism, transvestites, drag queens, cross dressing, intersexed and the growing continuum of gender confusion issues, please see our past articles here, here,  here and here.

Here are some other developments around the world:

● The judicial system in Nepal has mandated same-sex marriage.  Based on its court decision, the Nepal government will introduce the same-sex marriage bill this year.

● On January 8^th of this year the Parliament of Portugal passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage and the bill is expected to be ratified by Conservative President Anibal Cavaco.

●On December 29th, 2009 the Mayor of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrand, signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Mexico City.

●On December 28, 2009 the first same-sex marriage was performed in Latin America’s Argentina.

●And in February 2010, a same-sex marriage ceremony between two homosexual men in Kenya was interrupted by local Muslims and Christians who disapproved of homosexuality.  Had it taken place, it would have marked the first public same-sex marriage ceremony in East Africa. These two men knowing that homosexuality in general is prohibited in Kenya, had the boldness to defy the law, were set to get marry was straight rebellion to the laws of the Kenyan government, and the Word of God.

Ironically, Jesus said in Luke 17:26-30, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when Son of man is revealed.”

Jesus being a first century Rabbi, like most Jewish teachers, coupled Sodom with the flood generation as a typical image of evil.  His intent was to inform his audience that at His second coming the conditions of the world would mirror Noah’s days and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

As in the Days of Noah

The Midrash Rabbah Genesis is a specific form of rabbinic literature of ancient Judaism commentaries of the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is based on the interpretation of the Torah (Old Testament). It speaks about the subject of same-sex marriage during the days of Noah.

The rabbis wrote in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that the flood in Noah’s day was primarily triggered when males starting writing marriage deeds with other males, and between men and beasts (bestiality). Based on the account of Midrash Rabbah Genesis, same-sex marriages took place during the days of Noah.  There was nothing new under the sun and this is stated by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:9. Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah is synonymous with the destruction of the flood generation in Midrash Rabbah Genesis.  It states in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis that Lot pleaded all night for mercy for the Sodomites, and that the angels permitted him to plead for them. But once the people said, “… bring them out [the angels] so we may have sex with them,” mercy ran out.  The angels told Lot, “for now on you have no right to plead anymore.”  Judgment was sent upon Sodom.  Flood water was the judgment of God on the people in Noah’s day.  Fire and brimstone was the judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah.

The book of Enoch was written before the birth of Christ and although it is not an inspired book, it is a good resource.  Parts of it are quoted in Jude 14-15.  2nd Enoch 34-1, 3-4 states, “God convicts the persons who are idol worshipers and sodomite fornicators, and for this reason he brings down the flood upon them. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities, wickedness and abominable fornications. That is, friend with friend in anus, every other kind of wicked uncleanness which is almost too disgusting to report, and the worship of the evil one. And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.”  Second Enoch states that perverse homosexual relationships were the main cause of the flood.  Both Midrash Rabbah Genesis and the second book of Enoch state that God frowns on homosexuality in cultic prostitution, and in so-called “loving consensual” homosexual relationships.  So don’t believe the liberal Christian theologians, gay-affirming churches and inclusionists.  Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are an abomination in God’s eyesight.

GCM Watch’s article on June 24, 2008, “Gay Marriage: the ‘days Noah’ return” examined the fact that same-sex marriage caused the flood in Noah’s day in the Babylonian Talmud.  The Talmud is the interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures 1000 years before Christ.

The True Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the prophetic voice to this world.  Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!  We must be prepared to start looking up for our redemption draweth nigh. We must get the gospel message out and call sinners both in and out of the church to repentance. Acts 3:23 says, “And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which shall not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed among the people.” That Prophet is Jesus.

YOUR WARNING IS BEING SERVED!!!

Jeremiah 6:10 says, “To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.” If you continue to believe that same-sex marriage is right, if you scoff at the Word of God, if you ridicule the true Bible-believing Christians as ignorant and small minded, let the Sword of the Spirit circumcise your spiritual ear to receive the truth…or believe a lie and be damned.

In a Q and A with Details magazine, the openly gay ‘Lord of the Rings’ [and X-Men] star admits to a habit of tearing out the Bible passage that condemns homosexuality — Leviticus 18:22 — every time he finds one in his hotel room. The passage: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

“I’m not proudly defacing the book,” he asserts, “but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.”

McKellen says his actions have inspired others to do the same. “I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.”

Earlier this year a gay church in Scotland tried a similar trick which backfired on them.

I assume this is just the beginning of McKellen’s dead-end obsession,  but he may be ripping for the rest of his life. Even if he does, this foolish man will never change the Word of the Lord.  If he happens to read this, know there’s much more in the Bible than Leviticus 18:22. We’ll start with the Old Testament.

Genesis 1:27— God did not “create” as an original purpose or intent same gender sexual relationships. The concept simply doesn’t exist as a work of the Creator but later surfaces as a result of man’s ever expanding sin.

Genesis 6:19 —God instructs Noah to preserve only male/female pairings of animals to propagate each species. God’s intent is proof that the dead, unfruitful nature of homosexuality is opposite the living, fruitful and creative nature of God reflected even in nature.

Genesis 9:20-24 — The Bible’s first recorded instance of homosexual activity/desire produces not blessing, but rather a generational curse.

Genesis 19:4-13 —The story of Sodom’s sins of greed, inhospitality,  hatred and sexual perversion (as corroborated in Ezekiel 16:49). The main point is that pride in one’s sins will draw God’s wrath.

Leviticus 5:3 —Situational moral sins including homosexuality. The word “uncleanness” is translated from the Hebrew tame. Because sexual contact between males was defiling, God instructed the priests and Levites to treat it as signal marker of unholy conduct.

Leviticus 18:22;24-30—This is a second, more distinct command issued by God prohibiting male/male sexual relations.   Leviticus 18:22 is a sweeping condemnation of all homosexual activity whether forced or consensual; emotive or nonsexual; contemporary or ancient.

Leviticus 20:13 —This is the 3rd warning to homosexuals of the consequences of their actions. God graciously allows opportunity for repentance, but when it is rejected, he imposes harsh judgment. The word “abomination.” is derived from the Hebrew toevah, which denotes a clash of basic dispositions between the righteous and unrighteous.  Thus, homosexuality was seen as destructive to both the family structure and society.

Duet 22:5 — Prohibited cross gender dressing (transvestism, transgenderism et al) among the sexes. These were indigenous  practices of the idol worshipping Canaanites.

Deut 23:17 —Sovereign God commanded that there be no prostitution or homosexual conduct (religious sodomites from the Hebrew Qadesh) among the people.  The qadesh are forerunners of the contemporary gay christian movement.

Judges 2:11-13 —The “religion” of the Canaanites (descendants of Ham) was as corrupt and vile as could be. On a regular basis it involved child murders (sacrifice), self -mutilation, ritual prostitution and homosexuality. All were practices  God called ”evil.”

Judges 19:22-24 —This passage is almost identical to the Genesis 19 story, although it involves a completely different group of people. Interesting footnote: the people of Gibeah were relatives of the Sodomites.

1Kings 14:22-24—This passage highlights the rise of “tolerance” and evil it brings when sin is promoted through government. Governments should never sanction immorality because it contains a destructive element  affecting all people, both direct and indirectly. Rehoboam, the king, was strongly influenced by the tolerance policies of his mother, Namah (verse 21) of the Ammonites, also relatives of the Sodomites.

1Kings 15:11-13 — In this passage, the scribe singles out the sin of homosexuality for condemnation. Out of 13 other hideous Canaanite-adopted practices, the practice of sodomy-influenced religion in Israel was viewed as a specific threat to the security, health and spiritual integrity of God’s people. Asa, unlike Rehoboam before him, removed his own mother and her “tolerance” policies. Tolerance is dangerous when it is not based on biblical love.

1Kings 22:43;46 — Jehosaphat, Isreal’s head of state did what was “right” in the eyes of the Lord and removed religious sodomites (qadesh)  from influential positions within the country. This was a civil decision based on God’s commandments. Secular leaders can honor God and cause his blessings to come upon the land by restricting laws and policies which damage the well being of the nation at large.

2Kings 23:4-7— Josiah, another King of Isreal institutes reforms which specifically call for the removal of homosexuals who were influential in leading Isreal astray. His actions were part of a “covenant” with God.

Ezekiel 16:49— God didn’t destroy Sodom solely because of  of homosexuality.  Although it is evident it was a determining factor, Sodom’s sin of pride exacerbated their offensiveness to God.

Daniel 11:37— A reference to the sexual or misoginistic nature of the antichrist as envisioned by Daniel. The word “desire” is from Hebrew chamad, which denotes lust and desire associated with male/female sexuality.

Says Pastor Harmon of Independent Baptist Church in Wasila in a May 25th op-ed:

In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called “that Wicked” by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.

It is a legitimate question given the rise of homosexual marriage, how the gay church has thrown its weight behind it and what snippets about the antichrist the Bible reveals.

While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.

The appearance of the word “homosexual” in the bible is a rather juvenile claim by defenders of gay christian theology but as the pastor points out the behavior is there as clear as day.  Homosexual conduct has always been tied to idolatry both in the OT and NT. Its roots are deeply entwined in the “religious” practices of the peoples whom God forbade his people to associate with. Specifically, the worship of Astoreth (also known as Aphrodite, Isis in their respective cultures) who was believed to have dual sexuality. The Apostle Paul carried forward this understanding by further revealing homosexuals worship each other’s bodies as gods, having rejected the true God.

Pastor Hamman points out something else perhaps not brought out before:

While the Genesis account does not graphically describe their sin, leading some to deny it as being the same as homosexuality, their sin is obviously just that by how it is described: lying with mankind as with womankind. What other conclusion can be reached when they want to “know” the men who were in Lot’s house, the same word the Bible uses in Genesis 4 in relation to the conception of Cain? And that Lot himself understood their intentions is clear; not only did he call such behavior wicked, but he also offered his virgin daughters as substitutes, which the men of Sodom refused.

And one more thing: Sodomy is the only sin for which God came down from heaven to destroy. Though God dealt with many other sins in various ways, there is no other for which he came down from heaven to verify and destroy.

Say what you will, but that is significant. Just like the only time scripture recording Christ “standing” at the right hand of God when the first martyr of the church Stephen was being murdered for telling the pharisees about their many sins.

The Alaska pastor makes a good case that the reason illicit sex has been so pervasive and profitable throughout time is due to the “desire for women”. Using Daniel 11:37 as a reference, he explains that the male antichrist will hold no regard for it. I believe Daniel 11:37 is a glimpse into the sexual nature of the antichrist as envisioned by Daniel. The word “desire” is from Hebrew chamad, which in context denotes lust associated with male/female sexuality.

From a lost perspective, the reason sex sells, pornography is profitable, and prostitution is “the world’s oldest profession” is mankind’s desire of women. From Christianity’s position, it is part of the glue for the bond of marriage and the propagation of a godly heritage. But homosexuality does not regard this — in their unbridled lusts they burn for their own gender.

But consider this: The time is ripe for such a leader. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the one who is against everything Biblical and Christian should be a partaker of so great a sin; there is no greater way to reject the Creator than to reject your gender and his design for it. And at what other time have we seen such perversion come out of the closets onto our streets, threatening violence if we do not accept their ways?

Is it any wonder that Revelation 13 says that this same Antichrist will make war with the saints of the tribulation, and overcome them? Are they not now readying themselves to make it illegal to “offend” them in any way, calling it hatred to preach against their sin? Is it because they love us? The time is ripe for such a man.

Is Pastor Hamman’s commentary just speculation or is it revelation? It is striking that the homosexual agenda (both political and religious) far surpasses any and all others in terms of its ferocity and aggression.

You should also read:

Why gay marriage and why now?

Although there is no specific written doctrinal work on record by the Nicolatians, several things we can be sure of.
1. Their deeds and doctrines were hated by Jesus Christ. He specifically denounced and condemned this twice and followed with a stern warning to repent.
2. The Nicolatians were closely associated with idolatry and sexual immorality and exerted a certain amount of influence over the people of God. It required a forceful confrontation from Christ and his apostles. The scripture equate this negative influence with leaven.

WHAT THE NAME MEANS

According to Truth Ablaze and doctrinal exposition site, the name of the sect reveals much about the doctrinal error.

The name, Nicolaitanes, is a compound word which is composed of three Greek words, and which, because of being a proper noun, is transferred instead of being translated into English. As thus transferred, it is subject to the laws of Greek construction in regard to ellipsis, contraction and phonetics.

The Greek words used in its construction are first: “Nikos,” of which we use the English equivalents instead of the Greek letters, as we shall also of the other two. Nikos is defined as “a conquest; victory; triumph; the conquered; and by implication, dominancy over the defeated.” Another transferred name in which this term is used is “Nicopolis,” i.e., Niko – conquest; polis city. Hence, the city of conquest, or city of victory. Also “Andro” — “nikos;” a man of conquest, of victory.

The second term used in the name under consideration is “laos,” — people, another use of which is Nicolas, which is transferred and is composed of Nikoslaos and means one who is “victorious over the people,” the letter “s” being, in both words, the nominative case ending, which is retained only at the end of the word to denote the case, while “a” short and “o” short are contracted into “a” long.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Jesus also linked the Nicolatians to the error of Balaam, an Old Testament false prophet who has become a biblical symbol for apostasy.

Here in Pergamum, we see the “doctrine of Balaam” strictly condemned by Christ. It is important that we understand what Balaam’s “doctrine” was, so that we may steer clear of it today. What the Old Testament alludes to- Jesus makes very plain – the doctrine of Balaam involved idolatry and sexual immorality. I’m not going to post the whole story of Balaam for the sake of time and space. I encourage you to read about him in Numbers chapters 22-24. To make a long story short, Balak hired Balaam (a prophet of sorts who is called a “southsayer” in Joshua 13:22 KJV) to curse Israel. After numerous attempts at bribing him by Balak, Balaam finally comes to the conclusion that he cannot curse what God has blessed (I could really preach here, but I’m going to resist the urge so that we can stay on track). It’s going to take more than some verbal curse to make Israel vulnerable to her enemies. So he comes up with a strategy. This strategy is later revealed in Numbers 31:8,16. What becomes obvious is that Balaam’s strategy included getting the children of Israel to commit sexual immorality with the Midianite women. In committing this trespass, the men of Israel were also mingling with the pagan gods worshipped by these women. This is a perfect example of religious syncretism. That’s a big theological word, but it basically means a “mixture” of different belief systems. What makes it so deadly is that it gives the outward appearance of piety and reverence for God, all the while tolerating the things that He has so clearly designated as an abomination to Him. We must beware of this even today-now more than ever!

Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. The Nicolatians are likewise linked with Jezebel, another Old Testament personality who became known for leading Isreal into unrestrained idolartry and ruthlessly persecution of God’s true prophets.

Though the names keep changing (Nicolatians, Balaam, Jezebel), the message is basically the same. This teaching offers a Christianity which doesn’t demand obedience and loyalty to Jesus Christ alone. This is heresy and God hates it- plain and simple! We can clearly see that the aim of these false teachers is to convince Christians (notice Jesus calls them “my servants” in Revelation 2:20) that sexual immorality, ungodly lifestyles, and idolatry can be practiced without affecting one’s standing in Christ. Jesus strongly rebukes that notion by saying that judgement is surely coming to those who practice such works. He calls such teachings the “depths things of Satan.” (KJV) I think it would be interesting to see how this is translated in various versions for effect.

Even without an extensive knowledge of the Nicolatian sect, we can see why Christ declared his hatred for their actions and their false teachings. Today, though we are accused of hating homosexuals, it is the spirit behind the gay christian movement with its form of godliness that is truly worthy of the hatred of God’s people. Neither should it be tolerated. Our example should closely follow Christ’s in calling on them to repent and return to the truth.

As GCM Watch reported earlier here and here, gay christian researcher John Boswell set out to prove that the church was historically “tolerant” to homosexual unions. Liberally using what has been called “strained exegesis”, he formulated a religious fallacy in which he argued those unions were “normal” and comparable to those of the contemporary gay community.  The gay christian movement consequently built on that particular tenet, but contrary to the voices of esteemed early churchmen. Those voices were exceedingly vocal and intolerant of any homosexual activity among self-professed followers of Christ. The record shows that both biblical witness and apostolic tradition uniformly condemned homosexual practice as destestable and certainly outside of the will of God. 

First, read the excellent findings of Christopher Todd Bounds, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Theology at Indiana Wesleyan University.

Some additional highlights on homosexual issues from the early church fathers:

Though somewhat controversial, The Didache, yet reflects the prevailing Christian rejection of homosexuality within the Christian context:
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), one of the earliest Christian apologists whose works represent the earliest surviving Christian apologies of notable size:
“[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian, 2nd century apologist:
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea whose work forged unity among pro-orthodoxy believers:

“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Augustine

“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

HT: Laura 

Yesterday, we explored the life, impact and tragic legacy of gay historian and intellectual John Boswell as well as the impact of his most controversial book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Today we continue by further exploring Boswell’s impact on gay christianity.

Regardless of the stated purpose for writing the book, it was received by the heretofore voiceless gay christian movement as somewhat of a holy relic. We’ll call it CSTH worship because unlike any of his other books, this one catapulted him into savior status in the eyes of the gay christian movement. Without ever reading the book, one could sense the apotropaic essense it held for religious homosexuals.  

Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality floated the far-fetched hypothesis that homosexuality had never been condemned by the church doctrinally, it was all just a matter of the church being influenced by social rejection of same gender relationships. Boswell seemed to know, since this was his last book, that no matter how completely absurd the suppositions, it would be received as a formidable opponent to the Bible. Of course, there was no bypassing what the scripture said about homosexuality, therefore Boswell (and others of the scholarly pedigree) set about to circumvent what it said with what they decided it meant. And predictably,  through their scholarly discoveries, what it said was inconsequential compared to what history said and more importantly what history  acknowledged. In that respect, Boswell accomplished his goal. The arguments presented in CSTH are now esteemed as gay theology’s magna carta with cum laude.

Speaking of contradiction in Boswell’s research and thus reasoning, in a 1979 speech, he told a convention of gay christians, “The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone’s part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable.”

He did not make the connection that this is precisely what the Apostles Paul, Peter, Jude and others fought against. If Boswell is right, this was not homosexual rape and man-boy relationships gays try to distance themselves from. In Boswell’s view homosexual relationships under the Pax Romana in which Christianity was born and raised, were “loving, monogamus, consensual.” They were normal. And yet the Holy Spirit prompted the apostles to condemn such “normal” relationships in the strongest possible terms. The apostles observed the sexually permissive culture around them, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, condemned it as antithetical to a life of devotion to Christ. Believers were therefore forbidden to accept it and participate in it. Quite frankly, it explains the intensity of Paul’s Romans 1 homily portraying homosexuality as the paradigm of rebellion against God.

Red letter love and war

Its no wonder that any attempts to discuss homosexuality with gay christians using the Bible as a compass in near impossible. Their belief system is primarily inlfuenced by CSTH and secondarily influenced by scripture. Although the secondary sphere of influence is scripture, it is strikingly minimal, opting only to “red letter” their positions and even further limiting scripture to “red letter love” texts.

Many of the gay christians I have engaged in debate about this issue immediately deploy “red letter love” points as a shield against any condemnation of homosexuality. Considering CSTH’s massive influence on gay christian thought, its necessary to address this weak and erroneous position. Consider two conversations with Jesus about what is important to a servant of God.

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Jesus let the man answer his own question. It a restatement of the shema, the most important Jewish recitation of all. Jesus affirmed its correctness. Conversely, the shema also includes a warning that failing to heed the commandments would incur God’s wrath.
In another place it records he was asked the same question, but with different wording:

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus places emphasis on loving God with the totality of heart, soul and strength. Everything (including our bodies). But the question is how? How do we love God like this?
Without fanfare and without any exemptions, Jesus answered that question in John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Incidentally, the same greek word for love “agape”, is used in both instances. Additionally, red letter theorists seem to miss that Jesus said loving God and neighbor was the greatest commandment, not the only commandment.

How then, could John Boswell as a gay christian, love God like this and yet at the same time gut the commandment of God with CSTH? And how, by extension does the gay christian movement proclaim to love God, but follow the words of John Boswell?

Boswell could not even tell the truth to his closest gay friends. He consistently lied to them about his illness, telling them he had “lyme’s disease”. Are we to believe he was acting with the utmost of integrity and honesty in dealing with this eternal issue of souls? Hardly.

Boswell intentionally used CSTH as an alluring pipe in his pied piper experiement. And because they were so desperate for a reason not to obey God’s commandments, the gay christian movement followed him and continues to follow Boswell’s brilliant lie down a path to certain perdition.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:21,22 KJV

John Boswell’s life was tragic and short, but his revisioning of homosexuality in the Christian context became the basis of theological argument for much, it not all of, the gay christian movement.

His life was tragic because although he retained an enormous gifting of intellect, he used it to subvert Christian teaching on homosexuality. It was equally tragic because despite his stellar intellect, it did not protect him from contracting AIDS and eventually dying from it in 1994 at age 47.

Many of the arguments for the compatiblity of homosexuality and Christianity stem from John Boswell’s extremely controversial book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

In fact, if any Christian is confused by the rhetoric of tolerance and acceptance preached by the gay christian movement of today, one would need to look no further than Boswell’s book as the origin. Boswell’s book, more than the man himself, was the fathering voice of gay christian movement.
Advocates of homosexuality hailed the book primarily because they saw it as long awaited proof the sexually restrictive moral codes and standards of Christianity were indeed wrong. In Boswell’s book, they found the “authority” required to assault those standards.
Using his extensive Yale training in history and medieval languages, Boswell shrewdly argued that homosexuality was both tolerated and admired in historical western Christianity.
But like many homosexuals who have written what could be termed brilliant exposition or some other form of self-enabling research (Simon LeVay And the Hypothalamus theory), Boswell was out to prove a point that would stand only to benefit himself and others who rejected predominant Christian teaching on homosexuality.
But James Brundage, a professor of history and law at the University of Kansas, was quoted in an Associated Press story of Boswell’s death that, while the “mainstream reaction” believed Boswell raised some interesting questions, he hadn’t proved his case.

Rebuttals to Boswell’s historical hypothesis came from both sides of the theological coin.
John Lauritsen, a gay writer and activist wrote in hisCulpa Ecclesiae: Boswell’s Dilemma

“It is not surprising that Professor Boswell has been enthusiastically hailed by the gay Christians, to whom he appears as a new Savior who will rescue them, not only from queer-hating religionists, but from gay liberation secularists as well, by demonstrating historically that it’s all right to be a gay Christian.
I cannot remember reading a more frustrating book. Undeniably, it is a formidable work of scholarship. Boswell has retrieved, and translated, charming medieval verse, letters and other materials from periods which were previously more or less blank in the pages of gay history.

On the other hand, Boswell’s arguments, his use of evidence, are fatally flawed by his doomed attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. In his effort to marry the gay liberation movement to the Christian Church, Boswell is too often required to compromise the former while becoming complicitous in the historic crimes of the latter. “

Gary DeMar, president of American Vision said Boswell’s book was so critical to the gay christian movement that “if you refute it, you refute all arguments that claim the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior.” He further characterized Boswell’s work as “strained exegesis”.

“Boswell minimizes the importance of this [Sodom] story when he writes, “The sexual overtones to the story are minor, if present, and that the original moral impact of the passage had to do with hospitality. Briefly put, . . . Lot was violating the custom of Sodom (where he was himself not a citizen but only a ‘sojourner’) by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city.” Boswell assumes what he must prove.”

Boswell’s adept ability at “assuming what he must prove” has become a chief characteristic of the gay christian argumentation [see this post and links to Neil's 5 part series on the problem of progay theology.] for the compatibility of homosexuality and Christianity. Boswell left a legacy which, in our opinion, will cause many well meaning individuals to be blinded by Boswell’s brilliant lie. For all the intelligence and intellect Boswell harnessed to construct such a web of deception, be himself seemed to be its greatest victim.

Pictured at left: Etruscan symposium in a fresco from a tomb wall-painting from Cereveteri, depicting a youth refusing the advances of his neighbour on a symposium couch.

Proponents of gay christianity go through great lengths to present opposition to homosexuality, solely as a product of biblical misinterpretation. But there were other prominent, non-Christian voices in antiquity on record against the act. Voices like that of Psuedo-Lucian, a native of Samosata on the Euphrates, born around 120 A.D. He was the most famous of ancient Satirists, greatly influencing both ancient and modern satire. His special forte was philosophical and anti-philosophical criticism of society and philosophers. In his Affairs of the Heart, he writes:

“In the beginning , human life obeyed the laws made by nature; and men, linking themselves to women…became fathers of children. But gradually the passing years degenerated from such nobility to the lowest depths of hedonism…The same sex entered the same bed. Though they saw themselves embracing each other, they were ashamed neither at what they did not at what they had done to them. And sowing their seed on barren rocks, to quote the proverb, they brought little pleasure at the cost of great disgrace.” >

Although influential with his satirical perspectives, Lucian’s view of homosexuality ran counter to a culture saturated with idolatry.

The Greco-Roman culture’s justification of homosexuality stemmed from their idolatrous worship. Within the pantheon of gods, examples of same gender sexual coupling came from the “highest” at Mount Olympus. The chief god Zeus (also known by his Roman counterpart name Jupiter), engaged in a sexual relationship with Ganymede, a young male. In the Encyclopedie van de Mythologie, Mia Gibson wrote that “Zeus’ torrid affair with Ganymede was a religious justification for homosexuality within the Greek culture.”

Thus, the actions of men mirrored the actions of their gods. Their sense of sexual morality derived from immoral creation of their own imaginations (reference Paul’s masterful summation in Romans 1:21-23).
Likewise, the ancient communities in the periperhals of Isreal, post wilderness, followed the examples of their gods. Namely, Baal-Ashtoreth whose followers engaged in rituals of imitative magic involving homo and hetero-sexual behavior. Contrary to gay christian ideology, God did not condemn this simply so that Isreal could grow in population, but Baal worship cut at the heart of God’s sovereignty in Isreal, and indeed over the whole earth (Psalms 24:1). Hoping to diffuse the strong prophetic denunciations constantly coming from God, some worshipped Jehovah along with the false gods. Yet, there is not one instance in the Old Testament records which even remotely indicate God was pleased at Isreal’s emulation of Canaanite idol worship and sexual expression. In contrast, He responded with “fierce anger.”

Some things never change

Contemporary religious based homosexuality, like its typological ancient practice, is yet attempting to “have it all” by claiming the worship of God in concert with the practices derived from religious idol worship. the ethical relativists of the gay christian movement engage in circular argumentation embedded with cultural loopholes. Like we pointed out with Bishop Carlton Pearson, a rejection of Biblical authority forces one to circumvent what is othewise clear teachings of the scripture. Such arguments must be rejected because both Christ and the apostles accepted the divine authorship, infallibility and absolute authority of the Old Testament. Although the proponents of religious homosexuality dismiss or explain away OT injunctions, Christ, his apostles and subsequent writers of the NT did nothing of the sort.

How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to, as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 (Roger Nicole, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617).

Compare those figures to the number of times other writers are quoted in the New Testament: four. The apostles quoted the Old Testament 695 times, but other writers only four times. Yet some people insist that the teaching of the New Testament is that the Old is obsolete, only valid for a specific people during a limited time in history.

Consider a few more statistics. Of the 26 books and letters forming the New Testament, 20 quote the Old. The only ones that don’t directly quote the Old Testament are the six shortest-Titus, Philemon, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. However, Titus, 1 John, 3 John and Jude allude to Old Testament personalities or passages.

Thus, the religious homosexual movement is the worst form of idolatry because it willfully perverts the intent and practice of sexuality while prostituting the worship of Christ.

]]> http://www.gcmwatch.com/73/religious-idolatry-at-the-roots-of-gay-christianity/feed 0