Category Archives: apologetics
Refuting a lie is not for the faint at heart. Liars, the bible says, spend a significant portion of their time devising their putrid concoctions. Lies, ultimately are about manipulating something that otherwise could not be breached under normal circumstances.
Woe to those who scheme iniquity, Who work out evil on their beds! When morning comes, they do it, For it is in the power of their hands. Micah 2:1
Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes. For he flatters himself in his own eyes that his iniquity cannot be found out and hated. The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good. He plots trouble while on his bed; he sets himself in a way that is not good; he does not reject evil. Psalms 36:1-4
While we sleep, liars lay awake planning their lies out and despising what is good. Having said that, lets look at four broad-based lies gay christians and their allies tell on the church and the bible.
1. Christians’ prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality.
Although as superficial a lie as one can tell, it nonetheless has made a serious impact of how some view the authority of scripture and the how it applies to sexual sins. This is the lie of misplaced blame. It supposes that Christians who disagree with homosexual behavior are the ones who created the biblical narrative opposing it, thus they are to blame for what it clearly says. To conveniently label all opposition to a sexual behavior —which carries a deadly spiritual and physical penalty— as “prejudice” is a ludicrous and illogical position. Its like saying opposition to suicide is prejudice against freewill. The truth is that the bible is straitforward about all sexual immorality and makes zero exemptions for homosexual behavior, no matter what context the behavior occurs in or whether the participants are willing or not. Prejudice is judgment without knowledge. But Christians who follow biblical teachings which clearly oppose all forms of homosexuality are acting with integrity and honesty to speak the truth despite the lies told against them.
2. Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality merely to raise funds and increase their visibility.
The lie of impropriety. Why not speak out to raise money? If the money is being used to further the truth, it becomes a necessary function of the mission, plain and simple. What media outlet is going to give Christian leaders free air time? Which ones will give free ad space? If free publicity is being denied due to media bias against Christian leaders who speak out against homosexuality, then raising money is ethical and should be expected. Homosexual activist organizations, particularly the religious ones speak out against Christian leaders while raising money and gain visibility but want to deny that same privilege to others?
3. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated.
This is what we can label a tactical lie. Nothing is lost by simple making broad, but untrue assertions. Ergo, this is just another convenient tactic to muddy the waters and avoid honest debate about the truth. Has the bible been mistranslated when it comes to homosexuality? It depends on what your definition of mistranslation is. With gay christians mistranslation means anything that isnt lock-step with their warped interpretations. CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) explains why there has been no mistranslaton. At the same time, every errant explanation spoken by a person claiming to be a Christian is no more applicable to the entire Christian faith as it is with any other group of people. We do know as an irrefutable statistical fact that 100% of bible passages [OT, NT] which mention homosexual behavior, condemn it using the strongest possible language. And each different writer who did so, did so independently of the other but all were guided by the inspiration of God.
4. Scriptures that condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.
This is the second version of the tactical lie aka specious argumentation. By casting doubt on the context of scripture, it produces doubt about its truthful application. Homosexual social strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, write in their book “After the Ball” that homosexuals should “ muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards.” This tactic is stenuously adhered to by the gay christian movement.
First, lets ask these questions in response to this tactical lie. What authority determined that God’s laws and condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to contemporary society? Is this authority credible? Did this authority receive direct revelation from God that his immutable, eternal word has no application to modern society? When did this happen and who is the authority who makes this brazen claim? I will wager that if such a person existed they would be indentified as a prohomosexual cleric who self serving ideology benefits only a small contigent of sexual outlaws and not the greater good of humanity and certainly not the Christian family.
The Senator Qheleth blog has taken time to deconstruct a great deal of the vortex of religious revision by the johnny come lately child false prophet Matthew Vines. Vines claims that he studied the bible for two entire years because he was dissatisfied that as a homosexual he wasn’t allowed to be happy and have sex with another man. Not surprisingly, his two years of bible study yeilded nothing different from the other false teachers before him.
Despite the obvious signs of a spiritual ineptitude, Vines was quickly snapped up by the religious homosexual world like he was fresh meat at a gay club. He may not be aware that he is simply a pawn to spread lies, but most his age are not. The insatiable thirst of those who spread lies about homosexuality and the bible are always looking for new faces to smooth out the deceptive poison and it looks like they hit paydirt with Vines.
According to SQ, Vines elementary argument is “so weak it would fail first year seminary. There are a tremendous number of problems with what he has said- especially his misplaced assertion that traditional interpretations of Scripture on homosexuality have done nothing but ‘damaged’ people- and I cannot deal with them all here.”
Vines’ type of shallow thinking and exegetically deficient rhetoric is what progay teachers thrive on. Consequently, the Theology-R-US approach to one of the most serious moral issues raised in our times is quite frankly disastrous. The reason they take such great pains to avoid honest exploration of the truth is because lies are always built on cleverly devised misinterpretations that produce a plethora of questions and doubt. Hath God said?
SQ does an excellent job cutting through the weeds and underbrush of Vines’ pitiful theology to show that behind the poorly crafted dog and pony show is whats behind most dog and pony shows: hype and no substance.
Vines’ position is undergirded by a feel-good theology of avoiding loneliness. Time and again throughout his talk, Vines made statements like “We’re now forcing gay men to be alone, calling what God has made to be not good … the Bible explicitly rejects forced loneliness as God’s will for human beings”. While loneliness is never an ideal state for man to be in (Prov. 18:1), neither do ends (finding a solution for loneliness) justify means (constructing whatever relationships one can to avoid being alone). Jesus Himself was a lonely, misunderstood man and not once did He complain about it: He took it to God and used it to honour God and bless others. Christian theology never sees loneliness- or, more accurately, aloneness- as an end in itself. Neither is it true that single, unmarried, ‘unhitched’ Christians are all alone and miserable (Heb. 13:5). If Vines really believe this, then he must be a troubled, insecure individual and have nothing but disdain for singles. Christ and Paul (Matt. 19:10-12, 1 Cor. 7:32) both are at odds with this, but Vines has not done the theological gruntwork through this and his theology on singlehood is on very shaky ground, and he would do well to take note that when the first man was alone that Yahweh provided a woman in a marriage covenant to alleviate the problem (Gen. 2:18,22). If a person is single and chaste, God can use them powerfully (e.g. Corrie ten Boom, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Stott, J.I. Packer, John Chapman, Paul, and Christ).
False teachers always craft their ideology out of personal conjecture using emotionally charged issues to refute biblical truth. That may be attractive to weak, biblically illiterate individuals who are looking for an excuse to sin, but it would never pass the muster of truth that makes people free. John 8:32
According to the bible it is. And there are no apologies attached.
Here’s the wording:
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:32
But homosexuals and those who approve of (allies as they are called now) their perversion intentionally recast the words as a command to kill rather that what it literally says its worthy or deserving of death. There is no command to kill anyone and anyone who murders a homosexual using this scripture as justification isn’t acting for God, because there is no command to kill. There’s a stark difference in a judge telling a defendant in the courtroom “you deserve to die” and telling them “you will die”.
But the anger at what the scripture says is what fuels the hatred of ministers who speak the words in response the political, social and religious aggression of homosexual activists.
That’s what Pastor Robert Anderson is facing now as media and homosexual activists pressure him to recant his biblical assertion that homosexuality is worthy of death. For speaking the truth, he was immediately accused of inciting hate.
The Rev. Robert Anderson of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., made the statement at a meeting hosted by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, which opposes same-sex marriage. He quoted Romans Chapter 1 in the Bible.
“Listen to the last verse,” he said. “’Knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are deserving of death. Not only do the same’ – but watch this – ‘for those who also approve of those who practice these things.’ If we don’t vote against it, then we are approving these things that are worthy of death.”
Marylanders for Marriage Equality which is fighting for same-sex marriage to be approved feels opponents have gone too far.
“We really think that it was very inappropriate for the Maryland Marriage Alliance to hold a panel where they used the words ‘worthy of death’ to describe gay and lesbian couples,” said Sultan Shakir, of Marylanders for Marriage Equality. [source with video]
Anderson said its not his opinion, its what the bible says. And he is right. Voting to approve any practice that destroys and devastates people is an act of hate. Even if a person desires it, we should never agree to co-sign destructive behavior. The problem is that homosexual activists have no regard for the truth contained in scripture. They despise it because it and hate its influence because stands in the way of their “freedom”. If they could (and it probably will come to this) they would ban the bible as a “hate book” and eventually move to destroy all copies of it. That’s how potent the truth in the Word is.
A reporter for the New York Daily News called Pastor Anderson’s restatement “vehemently anti-gay”. Part of the reason that homosexuals associate any disagreement with their sexual behavior is because the euphemism they use to define themselves has no moral standard attached to it. That’s intentional. So when the bible condemns what they do, they redirect it as an attack on their identity even though its not.
Some Christians feel that its unwise to bring up Romans 1 when talking about homosexuality because it could be perceived as offensive. But that attitude belies the core problem. Sin is offensive to God and he addresses his offense to us without filters. For us to attempt to smooth it over and “fix” it, does a grave disservice to the homosexual. The church should not be in the business of changing God’s words.
Why we don’t literally kill homosexuals anymore
The elephant in the room is that homosexuals in this country are largely political and they pounce at any opportunity to demonize and paint Christians as cold blooded gay murderers. The Apostle Paul’s point of reference is undoubtedly from the Old Testament.
The reason we don’t is because the old “covenant” system, which required literal death punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. But just because the sentence of death has been removed —and it has— doesn’t meant that the worthiness of death has also been removed. It has not. In fact, sin throughout the bible is always equated with death. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23).
Its good that we still have men of God like Pastor Anderson who are not bought and paid for by the state and willing to speak the truth in love despite all the hatred against them. Homosexuals or any sinner deserve to hear the truth. Lying to them about their sin is an act of spiritual hate which can condemn them to hell.
Incidentally, the literal death punishments required under the old law are still practiced in force against homosexuals in muslim-sharia controlled nations.
If you thought the Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) in Atlanta was a safe place to send young people aspiring to ministry, think again. Its not. ITC’s mission statement says it wants to “educate Christian leaders for ministry and service in the Church and the global community. The ITC educates and nurtures women and men who commit to and practice a liberating and transforming spirituality; academic discipline; religious, gender, and cultural diversity; and justice and peace.”
Translated: We infect young people with unbiblical ideologies which are supported by the global, God-less church of religion and culture. A key tenet in the harlot church’s beliefs is that homosexuality is normal and not a sin.
The consortium is comprised of five African American denominational schools representing the Church of God in Christ, United Methodist, Baptist, AME, CME and Presbyterian.
ITC’s commitment to prohomosexual religion has come to the forefront after it fired one of its professors for giving students a book by bible scholar Robert Gagnon, which teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
New Testament professor, Jamal-Dominique Hopkins was dismissed immediately in part due to the fact that he was involved in giving out the book,The Bible and Homosexual Practice, to a student. Hopkins charged that the ITC also changed grades he had given students, but the incident involving the book appears to be the basis for the seminary’s vendetta against him. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that “Mr. Hopkins’s accusations of grade manipulation are part of a larger complaint he filed last month with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He alleges in the complaint that he was dismissed without due process and discriminated against on the basis of his … evangelical faith. His dismissal followed an informal prayer meeting he held where, he says, “a book was shared that opposed homosexual-Christian lifestyles.”
Religion News Service also reported:
The Rev. Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, an African-American expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July. He accused ITC administrators of harassment that included “disagreeing with my conservative religious ideals, intimidating me, slandering my character, giving me poor evaluations, and changing student grades from failing to passing with no merit.’’
Hopkins, 42, told Religion News Service that tensions arose after a speaker from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship addressed an informal session he organized in February. During the session, attendees were offered a book that declared homosexuality was a sin.
He said his department chair, the Rev. Margaret Aymer, questioned the distribution of the book and threatened his job. Watch Aymer’s gay marriage speech.
The school’s president responded in typical dismissive, progay style:
“The reality is that the non-renewal of Dr. Hopkins’ contract had nothing to do with academic freedom or any efforts to infringe thereon,’’ Ronald Peters wrote. He added that Hopkins’ claims are “disappointing remarks of a disgruntled former employee and are a misrepresentation of fact.”
No, Mr. Peters, you are lying. You retaliated against this man because he wouldn’t become a part of your detestable infection of students’ spiritual beliefs.
Hopkins lawyer said they would file suit if the situation was not resolved.
The ITC situation represents yet another example of the lengths the diehard defenders of the cult of homosexuality will go to stifle, beat down and persecute anyone who refuses to co-sign the religious dog and pony show. Parents who believe the bible should consider other educational options for their children because clearly ITC has no intention of upholding or teaching biblical truth about homosexuality.
Why do gay christians and their allies claim that if Jesus were here today he would approve of homosexuality? Some of the reasons such as the need to justify their own behavior is obvious. But from Jesus’ own words, its clear that not only does he not approve of homosexuality, he condemns it as a fallen condition of the human experience. Consider, if you will, the following passage from Mark 10:2-12
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
The above exchange between Jesus and the pharisees would be the exact same exchange between Jesus and advocates of homosexual marriage had they been the ones “tempting” him to go against God’s will. First of all, take note that the question is not one seeking to know for the purpose of of adjusting one’s life to the sovereign will of God. Its a temptation. And every temptation originates with satan, because God cannot tempt man with evil (James 1:13). In the same way, the questions posed by gay christians and their allies do not seek spiritual enlightenment to live by God’s will it is a temptation to commit evil.
Homosexual pharisees would have asked Jesus something like “Is it okay for a man/woman to be in a monogamous, consensual, loving relationship with another man/woman?”
Jesus would have responded and asked them what the law stated. At this point, their question would have come to a dead end because they would have already known what the law required: death for any man who engaged in sexual relations with one of the same gender.
The more salient point to be extracted is that Jesus did not support divorce and he would not have supported homosexuality seeing as how both were a violation of God’s original moral laws. In fact, his deference to the original law of God –not the law of Moses— shows that he did not regard man made religious proclamations which gave approval to sin.
Seeing that Jesus is the omniscient God come in the flesh (John 1:1-14), he could have easily taken this opportunity to exempt homosexual relationships that are so called “loving, consensual and monogamous”. Although he knows all things past, present and future, he did not exempt homosexuality (or any other immoral relational rearrangement).
But gay christians claim that the bible does not recognize contemporary monogamous, loving same sex relationships, thus none of the prohibitions are applicable to them. Such an argument is trite and conveniently self serving.
What gay christians and their allies attempt to do is take a record of human experience and make it law. Because of the hardness of their hearts against God’s law, they make their own which allows them to commit homosexuality. But Jesus counteracts such erroneous assumptions by saying that human experience is not the measure for righteousness. It has never been and never will be. The true plumbline for all human relationships is God’s original standard. That’s why Jesus referred them back to the original intent of God. God’s standards, no matter who fails to achieve them, will always remain the same.
And even if there were cases of homosexual marriage in the bible specifically, just like adultery, polygamy and beastiality, it would be just another example of failed human experience which carries zero approval from God.