P.r.o.o.f. of eXistence

Listen… seriously. 
(He is using a character he has, no he doesn’t really act/talk like that, but the message…LISTEN).

“‘I was born this way’ Okay… but you can be born again.’” 

Willie Mo Jr - Christian Rapper. 

Chances are you heard by now that the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, has thrown his support behind Sam-Sex marriage.

No big news to those of us who follow politics, given that he has shown support the entire time despite his previous quotes…

1. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” while running in 1996 for Illinois state Senate, in a written response to a questionnaire from Chicago’s Outlines gay newspaper.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76109.html#ixzz1uzR3CIDM

2. “Undecided,” while running for re-election to state Senate in 1998, in response to an Outlines questionnaire asking, “Do you favor legalizing same-sex marriage?”

3. “I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly…” - Feb. 2, 2004, while an Illinois state Senator, in an interview with Chicago gay newspaper, the Windy City Times.

4. “I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” while a U.S. Senator, writing in his memoir in 2006, “The Audacity of Hope.”

5. “The government has to treat all citizens equally. I am a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version, in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of the same-sex union are compatible. When it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that right now are not being given to same-sex couples, I think that’s unacceptable.” - Aug. 9, 2007, while running for president, at a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the HRC and the LOGO network.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76109.html#ixzz1uzQzRgNc 

So why am I writing like its news?

Well I have heard it said that “Obama needs to do what it takes to get re-elected” by those that support him. In my opinion, thats kind of… nuts.

I mean, I won’t ever trust someone who is so willing to sell-out just to garner (or solidify) his vote with the Liberal Left.

You see, the way I see it is: 1) Obama was (is?) has wavering support on his hands. His Obamacare is failing in court (as unconstitutional). He has added more debt to the nation than Bush in 8 years (look it up) and has been found to trample on the constitution for the sake of… well for what?

The left was (is?) losing his support. So, to solidify their support he made history and said “I support same sex-marriage.” As long as you can get liberals to rally around something as UNIMPORTANT as this (as opposed to the constitutionality of the Office or defense spending or economic priorities) then it is totally worth it. A perfect distraction and some passionate new votes.

What makes it more addable heinous is his timing. 2 Days before a Hollywood fundraiser… because you know Hollywood is proponent numero Uno for the LGBT cause. With that, he was able to completely sell-out his $40K a plate fundraiser at George Clooney’s mansion ($40K is about the US GDP per capita mind you). Even worse is, 2/3 of the $$$ that made up the $12-15M came from the average Joe (making about $40K a year) who bought a raffle trying to get a ticket into the fundraiser to hangout with Obama…

Mind you, somehow the Left tries to tell us that Romney is someone we cannot relate to (but Clooney is)?

Oh and just to make my point clear, its his willingness to sell-out that smells to me, not just his stance on the issue (which was obvious). If he will be willing to do it there, he will do it anywhere… like the US Constitution, his personal beliefs, or economy even more than he already has.

Beacause… the Biblical “Golden Rule” can be totally used to justify’s condoning what is already deemed unlawful.
 

How many times have you heard the argument that…

“Christians pick and choose what they want to believe in the Bible.”

As false of an argument as it is, Christians often get tripped up especially when it is accompanied by the usual proceedings “examples” such as:

 ”Its true because… (1) “The Bible condones slavery and yet today Christians don’t.” Or (2) “How come they don’t stone gays or adulterers..” etc

 Of course the language calls the laws “barbaric” or “antiquated” etc.

Barbaric, eh… no. For our time, sure. Antiquated, absolutely.
So am I agreeing with them?

Yes and no. Yes, we do not follow these laws anymore (obviously) but no we didn’t pick and choose. Here are 2 different ways around this little trick.

—-

1. The New Covenant

We are under a new covenant.  Jesus said inLuke 22:20, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament inJer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”  It is referenced in1 Cor. 11:25,2 Cor. 3:6,Heb. 8:8,9:15; and12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”  The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God.  Galatians 3:24says that the law is what points us to Christ.  It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14;Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel.  Also, the devil and his demonic horde was constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah, to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people.  Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to “be at peace with one another,” (Mark 9:50) and “with all men,” (Rom. 12:18). Rom. 14:19says, “pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.”  After all, “God has called us to peace,” (1 Cor. 7:15).

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing.  We are to not participate in the sins of the world.  Instead, we are to avoid them.  We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13).  Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14).  But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands — as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers, is because we’re no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13).

As you can see here, you will need a LOT of Biblical evidence to back up your claim, and at times you might simply “lose” your counter-part in the Biblical rhetoric or understanding.
That’s unfortunate, but if they have the patience and the willingness to learn then it is perfectly fine. From my experience, not many are willing to learn. They simply want to catch an off-gaurd Christian in his so called “bigotry” or “hypocrisy.”

In the end, you can see how Christ and the New Testament show, among other things, a perfect example of grace.

But if you need a quicker and more “history-esque” approach, you can use Thomas Aquinas’ categorization of laws.

——

2. Old Testament Law Categorization

“The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the [ceremonial], and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The [ceremonial] laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods were representative of the future and true High Priest, Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the [ceremonial] laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not applicable now.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God’s holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws, but we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.”

Got that?

Its easy, lets take an example: The Sabbath.

In the New Testament, the 10 commandments are reaffirmed (being moral) except the Sabbath (a civil/ceremonial law).

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

What is it more important that one worships on Saturday as opposed to Sunday, or that he regards a day of worship altogether?

Lets take one of those “Barbaric” law examples: Adultery. This one is a Civil Law… In our society (USA: Democratic-Republic not governed by Scripture / God and or King) there is no punishment for Adultery except what is broken contractually between married persons (or otherwise). Nor does our nation prescribe one faith (thus laws) over another - hence it is not practiced. It is important to note though, in something like Homosexuality or Adultery, the Laws are twofold: 1) Moral (the acts being thus immoral) and 2) Civil (this is where the punishment comes in).

Jesus Christ, even before the Cross, showed how this works - asking those willing to stone an Adulteress “Let he without sin cast the first stone.” Christ then offered her forgiveness and directed her to repent “go and sin no more”. See, Christ understood that the Old Covenant was end(ing) and a new one would be established - overriding the civil and ceremonial Laws of Old, but upholding the moral.

[Furthermore, on the part of slavery; again this is a Civil Law. The Old Testament provides provisions on what to do with slaves but it does not provide a stance on it (i.e. it is good and or right). That is because it is not a moral law and because the times called for slavery. If it existed, then it was dealt with. The Consumption of Pork is also another example of Civil Law. I would argue for a 4th type (or intermediate category) for “Sanitary or Health” - whereas the consumption of pork would fit (between Civil and Sanitary) alongside other health/sanitation conscious laws such as the burying of dead outside city grounds or the removal of human waist from camp grounds or the washing of hands prior to consuming foods etc.]

[Quoted material: CARM.ORG]

Hope this helps! 
God Bless.

 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)

Anti-bullying message. gotta love it…

Ron Brown: Nebraska Coach takes a firm stance on Faith

“I have simply said that based on the Bible, homosexuality, the lifestyle of homosexuality, is a sin,” he said. “That has created a flame within itself. But I’ve decided I’m not going to be afraid of people calling me a bigot or a homophobic or narrow-minded out of a simple, gentle, compassionate expression of the truth of God’s word. I’m not going to be bought off by that.”

To be fired for my faith would be a greater honor than to be fired because we didn’t win enough games. - Ron Brown

Anti- (Gay) Bullying Activist - Dan Savage - "Bullies" Students during Speech

T.D. Jakes Stands on Right Ground: Christianity & Homosexuality

Im one who is quick to push TD Jakes into a “Christian” circle with Ted Hagaard and Joel Olsteen… (in other words a bit OFF when it comes to good pastors).

But I am also one who gives credit where it is due.

Recently, TD Jakes went on Oprah (sigh*) to talk about his “Fame” and MegaChurch and criticisms.

Then Oprah touched on that one subject that is known to put pastors under the microscope - Homosexuality. A pastor, in this position has 2 options:

• 1) Stand your ground on your opinion and be called Homophobic, arrogant, a bigot, and narrow minded,
• 2) Compromise and say there is nothing wrong with it (absolutely unbiblical…).

In my opinion, TD answered this issue perfectly!

OPRAH:“Would you say that everybody is embraced in your church?” Winfrey asked. “Cause you know you have been accused of saying that gay people would not be welcome.”

TD: “That’s not true at all,” Jakes began. “The perception in our society today is that if you don’t say you’re for same-sex marriage or if you say homosexuality is a sin that you’re homophobic and you’re against gay people. And that’s not true.”

The pastor continued, “I’m not called to give my opinion. I’m called as a pastor to give the scriptural position on it,” the pastor added. “Doesn’t mean that I have to agree with you to love you. I don’t dislike anybody. I love everybody.”

Winfrey went on to ask if Jakes thinks being gay is a sin.

TD: “I think that sex between two people of the same sex is condemned in the Scriptures, and as long as it is condemned in the Scriptures, I don’t get to say what I think. I get to say what the Bible says,” Jakes said.

A perfect answer. You see, people like to act like we as Christian’s position ourselves on things because we want to or because we want to be better or “more holy” than you and then boast on it. NO. We believe in the Scriptures as Truth and if we compromise Truth, we are not living by it - the Words of God.

Its amazing though, how even though TD said:

“ if you don’t say you’re for same-sex marriage or if you say homosexuality is a sin that you’re homophobic and you’re against gay people. And that’s not true.”

That the FIRST, the very FIRST thing these media/society people he talked about went and did exactly what he predicted.

Critics immediately contradicted Jakes’ comments by branding the pastor’s statements as “homophobic” and “anti-gay,” with some in the liberal media even calling the megachurch pastor hypocritical in light of an incident involving one of his son’s several years ago.

New York-based Gawker.com portrayed Winfrey as asking Jakes if he “likes gay people,” while calling the minister a bigot.

”[…] she lets Jakes spout anti-gay sentiment while swearing off homophobia,” Gawker’s Rich Juzwiak writes in his article, titled “Anti-Gay Pastor Doesn’t Want to Be Known For Being Anti-Gay.”

Juzwiak claims that by “disagreeing” with gay people, one is actually “disagreeing with something that is fundamental to their existence: how they love.” He goes on to insinuate that holding a biblical view of homosexuality “values an institution over human beings who are going to love each other and be together anyway, like they have been since the dawn of time.”

Dismissively calling Jakes’ “love” for homosexuals worthless, Juzwiak points readers to a 2009 report on Jermaine Jakes’ arrest in a “gay sex sting” in a local park. Jakes’ stepson was accused of exposing himself to two undercover police officers.

How pathetically predictable is that!?

Look at how one critic calls TD’s love for Homosexual’s as “worthless” simply for disagreeing. Really???

You see, people, it IS possible to be a SECULAR bigot, and these people above have showed that perfectly.

Let me say one last thing.

TOLERANCE does not constitute APPROVAL of something.

Tolerance is: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward thosewhose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc.,differ from one’s own…

TOLERANCE means there is an existence of a difference, but you accept that difference and live with its existence. It does NOT mean to force the other side to stop believing what they believe. 

If you are going to be a Christian, you HAVE to accept the Word as Truth. If you are outside of the fold, than you… of course… do not. 

As Christians, the Bible is not Tolerant. We should, and you should, know this. It is black and white “if you are not with Me you are against Me…” says Christ. Black and White!

But for you secular critics… you are being just as INTOLERANT when you attack us, for believing in the Holy Scriptures and what they say. That my friend is secular Bigotry.

What is bigotry? 

Bigotry is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, oropinion that differs from one’s own.

As Christians, we are Intolerant of Sin. Its true. But we do not force anyone to believe if they do not want them to… [I] simply ask that if they want to not believe - they completely remove themselves from us so as to not display a false image of the Scriptures.

The Secularist/Homosexual critics against the Christian/Biblical stance on Homosexuality is being FAR more Bigoted in that it is attempting to FORCE the church to change their beliefs… (or in other words not follow scripture).

So… again - thank you Pastor TD Jakes for standing on Solid Ground, on this issue. I pray that you do the same in all things. 

• NOTE: This may be a little long, but take some time to read it. Pastor gives phenomenal answers!
• Host: You are a Christian pastor, and you say you believe the Bible, which means you are supposed to love all people.
• Pastor: That’s right.
• Host: But it appears to me that you and your church take a rather unloving position when it comes to gay people. Are homosexuals welcome to come to your church?
• Pastor: Of course. We believe that the gospel is a message relevant for every person on the planet, and we want everyone to hear the gospel and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So at our church, our arms are outstretched to people from every background, every race, every ethnicity and culture. We’re a place for all kinds of sinners and people with all kinds of problems.
• Host: But you said there, “We’re a place for sinners.” So you do believe that homosexuality is sinful, right?
• Pastor: *Yes, I do.
• Host: So how do you reconcile the command to love all people with a position on homosexuality that some would say is radically intolerant?
• Pastor: **(smiling) If you think my position on homosexuality is radical, just wait until you hear what else I believe! I believe that a teenage guy and girl who have sex in the backseat of a pick-up are sinning. The unmarried heterosexual couple living down the street from me is sinning. In fact, any sexual activity that takes place outside of the marriage covenant between a husband and wife is sinful. What’s more, Jesus takes this sexual ethic a step further and goes to the heart of the matter. That means that any time I even lust after someone else, I am sinning. Jesus’ radical view of sexuality shows all of us up as sexual sinners, and that’s why He came to die. Jesus died to save lustful, homo- and heterosexual sinners and transform our hearts and minds and behavior. Because He died for me, I owe Him my all. And as a follower of Jesus, I’m bound to what He says about sex and morality.
• Host: But Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality outright, did He?
• Pastor: He didn’t have to. He went to the heart issue and intensified the commands against immoral behavior in the Old Testament. *So Jesus doesn’t just condemn adultery, for example, as does one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus condemns even the lust that leads to adultery, all with the purpose of offering us transformed hearts that begin beating in step with His radical demands.*
• Host: You say he condemned adultery, but he chose not to condemn the woman caught in adultery.
• Pastor: That’s right, but He did tell her to *“go and sin no more.”
• Host: But who are you to condemn someone who doesn’t line up with your personal beliefs about sexuality?
• Pastor: Who am I? No one. It’s not all that important what I think about these things. This conversation about homosexuality isn’t really about my personal beliefs. *They’re about Jesus and what He says*. I have no right to condemn or judge the world. That right belongs to Jesus. My hope is to follow Him faithfully. That means that whatever He says in regard to sexual practices is what I believe to be true, loving, and ultimately best for human flourishing – even when it seems out of step with the whims of contemporary culture.
• Host: But you are judging. You are telling all the gay people watching this broadcast that they are sinners.
• Pastor: *I’m not singling out gay people. I’m pointing to Jesus as the answer to all sexual sinfulness.*
• Host: But you are referring to gay people. *Why are you so focused on homosexuality?*
• Pastor: (smiling) With all due respect, you are the one who brought up this subject.
• Host: Are you saying that you can’t be gay and Christian?
• Pastor: *No. I’m saying that you can’t be a genuine Christian without repentance.* Everyone – including me – is guilty of sin, but Christianity hinges on repentance. We agree with God about our sin, and we turn from it and turn toward Jesus. When it comes to Christianity, this debate is not about homosexuality versus other sins. It’s about whether or not repentance is integral to the Christian life.
• Host: But do you see why a homosexual watching this might think you are attacking them personally? You’re saying that something is wrong with them.
• Pastor: I think Jesus’ teaching on sexuality shows us that there is something wrong with all of us – something that can only be fixed by what Jesus did for us on the cross and in His resurrection. That said, I understand why people might think I am attacking them personally. Most people with same-sex desires believe they were born with these tendencies. That’s why they often see their attraction as going to the very core of who they are, and so they identify themselves with the “gay” label. So whenever someone questions their behavior or desires, they take it as an attack on the very core of their being. *That’s usually not the intent of the person who disagrees with homosexual behavior. But that’s the way it is perceived. I understand that.
• Host: If it’s true that a person is born with one sexual orientation or another, then how can it possibly be loving to condemn one person’s orientation?
• Pastor: *Well, we really don’t know for certain about sexual attraction being innate and set from birth.* All we have is the testimony of people who say that they’ve experienced same-sex desires since childhood. *Christianity teaches that all people are born with a bent toward sin. It’s possible that some people will have a propensity toward alcohol abuse or angry outbursts, while others may have a propensity toward other sins*. Regardless, Christians believe people are more than their sexual urges. We believe that human dignity is diminished whenever we define ourselves by sexual urges and behaviors. Consider this: married men are sometimes attracted to multiple women who are not their wives. Does this mean they should self-identify as polygamists? Not at all. And surely you wouldn’t consider it hateful for Christians to encourage married men not to act on their desires in an effort to remain faithful to their spouses. It is the Christian way, after all.
• Host: No, but it still seems like you are telling people not to be true to who they are.
• Pastor: It only seems that way because you believe sexual desire reflects the core of one’s identity. *It would help if you and others who agree with you would understand that in your putting pressure on me to accept homosexual behavior as normal and virtuous, you are going to the very core of my identity as a follower of Jesus*. The label most important to me is “Christian.” My identity – in Christ – is central to who I am. So I could say the same thing and call you intolerant, bigoted, and hateful for trying to change a conviction that goes to the core of who I am as a Christian. I don’t say that because I don’t believe that’s your intention. But neither should you think it’s my intention to attack a homosexual person or cause them harm merely because I disagree.
• Host: But the problem is, your position fosters hate and encourages bullying.
• Pastor: I recognize that some people have mistreated homosexuals in the past. *It’s a shame that anyone anywhere would mock, taunt, or bully another human being made in God’s image.* That said, I think we need to make one thing clear in regard to civil discourse: *To differ is not to hate.* I hope we can still have a real conversation in this country about different points of view without casting one another in the worst possible light. *The idea that disagreeing with homosexual behavior necessarily results in harm to gay people is designed to shut down conversation and immediately rule one point of view (in this case, the Christian one) out of bounds.* As a Christian, I am to love my neighbor and seek his good, even when I don’t see eye to eye with my neighbor. Furthermore, the picture of Christ on the cross dying for His enemies necessarily affects the way I think about this and other issues.
• ---
• I read this 3 Months ago and lost it under a pile of "likes." This is my take, my sentiment, and encompasses everything I believe concerning the issue. Please read it in its entirety.
• My Favorite Lines have an Asterix near them.*

• Question: How can you anything non-biblical is not worth reading into? You know, my friend is fully Christian raised by good parents and she understands being gay is not a sin. It's very easy: Being gay isn't a choice ---> God makes no mistakes. I do have a movie you might enjoy (It's completely unbiased, it shows an argument it's not any kind of propaganda) called "Prayers For Bobby." The movie is about a kid how kills himself because his mother won't accept him being gay. I hope you watch it. - Anonymous
• Answer:

  I didn’t say anything non-biblical is not worth reading into. I said anything that says something is un-biblical, in order to make a biblical point (like sin) is not worth reading into. It is using a non-biblical basis to try and tell Christians what to believe. 
  
  Should I tell a Muslim that believing God has a Son is not a sin? No. Im a Christian…I do not practice Islam nor understand its tenants as an Imam would (though i am well versed in Islam).
  
  So please, stop telling me that being gay isn’t a sin when the Bible is clear that is. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice, doesn’t change if it is a sin. I was born into a sinful nature but God has called me out of it to live a life of repentance, washed i the blood of Christ. Studies are not concrete on whether homosexuals are truly “born that way.” If not - then its a conscious choice to sin. If they ARE born that way, then like everyone on earth, they are inclined to sin (sinful nature) and must do what everyone must do in order to be saved and that is - Repent, and accept Christ. The Holy Spirit will take care of those sinful tendencies. A Homosexual’s sinful tendency just so happens to be manifested in the action of homosexuality. Read more HERE (or look in my archive).

  ANON: Just an FYI: The bible never says homosexuality is a sin. Ever. Leviticus is also proven to be entirely inaccurate so trusting it is like trusting a heroin addict with heroin. Think before you hate.

  This entire last post is false and kind of hilarious.
  1. Leviticus is a historical document of the Jewish people that describes their Laws and God’s commands. How do you prove that as false? If you have an answer do tell.

  by Matt Slick

  Lev. 18:22

  • ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (NASB)
  • “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (ESV, NKJV)

  Clearly, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality.  What else does it mean when it says “you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female”?  The term “lie with” here refers to sexual intercourse in the phrase “lie with a male as one lies with a female.”  It is an abomination.  The word here is תֹּועֵבָה towʿebah, toʿebah.

  117 occurrences; AV translates as “abomination” 113 times, “abominable thing” twice, and “abominable” twice. 1 a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable. 1a in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages). 1b in ethical sense (of wickedness etc).1

  Lev: 20:13

  • “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” (NASB)
  • “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (ESV)

  The word “detestable” is the same Hebrew word found in Lev. 18:22, “abomination.”

  There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death.  But we might ask, why such harsh penalty for a simple “sexual orientation?”  The answer lies in the overall context in which the Old Testament is written.  God had promised the Messiah who would be the Savior, the Deliverer of people from the judgment of God.  If homosexuality was to run rampant, it would threaten the arrival of the Messiah and thereby make God’s Word invalid (essentially making God a liar), and this cannot be.  Since God works through people, he provided the harshness of the law in order to guard people from their own sins, the sins of others, and ultimately provide a way by which the Messiah would come and die on the cross for our sins. 

  Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come and we are not under a theocratic governmental system.  Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals.  We are to pray for them and their repentance so they might find salvation in Christ.

  Objections ANswered

  1. Leviticus was part of the mosaic law that was written to the Jews, not the Christians. Therefore, the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus does not apply to present day Christians.

  First of all, it is obvious that homosexuality was condemned as a sin in Leviticus.  Are we to conclude that God changes his mind and says that for one group of people homosexuality is a sin but for another it is not? 

  Second, God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  This signifies the God ordained order of male and female, not male and male or female and female.  This is important because it was before the mosaic law was given.  The mosaic law properly reflects the created order of God that excluded homosexuality.  Therefore, the argument that homosexuality is not for Christians because it was intended for Israel under the Old Testament law does not apply.

  Third, Paul the apostle condemns homosexuality in Romans 1:23-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10, each of which were written to Christians.

  carm.org

  
  2. Your heroin addict analogy is senseless truly. What were you trying to say here?
  
  3. I really got angry reading the “think before you hate” comment. I read this after walking home with one of my project partners. This guy is on Student Govt. Senate and he happens to be gay. We laughed and had a good time talking, and there was NOT ONE INCH of hate in me for him. Just love. I am a Christian and I stand firm to my beliefs because I understand the Word of God as Truth. Christ commands us to Love, and thats all I show to my fellow man (gay or straight).

  
  I also understand what True tolerance is. Tolerance is having a different opinion, way of life, or ideology and “tolerating” the existence of another. Tolerance does not mean I have to “accept” it and “approve” of it. Tolerance is “living in peace with your neighbor” as far as it depends on me (Romans 12:18).
  
  The current liberal idea of tolerance isn’t true tolerance, its coercion. Its attempting to get people to NOT stand up for what they believe. Liberal tolerance today is more likened-to compromise and brainwashing. 

• Question: So, tell me, have you read any books or articles (or watched any videos) about why homosexuality isn't necessarily a sin? If not, then how can you possibly think you're fully-educated on this issue? You know, I really suggest you watch a documentary titled "For The Bible Tells Me So," about how the anti-gay mindset can be incredibly harmful to homosexuals. If you're unwilling to watch that, then there's no reason why you should claim to be well-educated on this topic. - mrs-annie-odair
• Answer:

  Thanks for your patience, I will not be publishing these (after this one) because they’re kind of going in circles.
  
  Anything that says Homosexuality is not a sin is not Biblical therefore I do not read into it. It is attempting to tell Christians what the Bible says, when we already know what it says. There are also some who suggest the NT words are ambiguous and yet others who say that Paul was being specific to a place. While yes Paul may have been specific, he suggests elsewhere that homosexuality is a sin as is - as well as the Leviticus verses.
  
  Anti-gay is not my course of action. Anti-sin is. I have gay friends and I have found myself to be one of a very little few who defended them (from verbal abuse) before they came out and after. They were both teammates on my baseball team(s).
  
  I have not seen FTBTMS in its entirety because I was annoyed at how ignorant it made Bible believers seem. I have seen many other things on how being anti-homosexual is “bad.” I find those articles/sources bias because they do not present the positives of pro-family values. I am pro-family (traditional)… not anti-gay (which has a negative connotation). That say I am anti-gay agenda (which can be over-the-top over-kill and pushed by Hollywood to the max).
  
  
  

  What, specifically, about the view that homosexuality isn’t a sin, makes it un-Biblical? Just because it contradicts with what you’ve been taught about the Bible doesn’t make it un-Biblical. Also, have you or have you not read Prayers For Bobby? If not, then I highly suggest you read it. I also suggest you watch the documentary “For The Bible Tells Me So.” If you really value education as much as you claim to, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be okay with reading & watching those things.
  
  

  The view that says homosexuality isn’t a sin is unBiblical, because the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it contradicts the Bible, thus it is unacceptable within Christianity. Notice, i said within Christianity. Outside of a relationship with Christ we are all lost.

• Question: So basically, you're determined to keep yourself intentionally ignorant about the facts about homosexuality, and, instead, you blindly believe everything you read on anti-gay websites? Educating yourself is not a bad thing, you know. So why not read up on what the pro-gay websites have to say? Why not read up on the view that homosexuality isn't a sin? Why not read books like Prayers For Bobby, so that you can know what it's really like to be gay? Why keep yourself ignorant? I don't get it. - mrs-annie-odair
• Answer:

  You didn’t read my responses did you?
  
  1. I know the facts about Homosexuality
  2. I do not read anti-gay websites (though I do support pro-family values and institutions).
  3. I am very educated on the matter, or I wouldn’t speak about it - I also happened to be a Graduate student, so I know the value of Education
  4. The view that homosexuality is not a Sin is an un-Biblical view. I am a Christian, therefore I do not adhere to views that are anti-Biblical.
  5. I understand that gays are persecuted and treated negatively (etc) that is why as a Christian I offer them the same love and respect as any of my friends/enemies.
  6. Have you tried to understand the Christian perspective on homosexuality? You call it dumb or bigoted but have you actually ever tried to read into it? If so good job, if not then why are you questioning me?
  7. I am more than well versed on the issue and matter that I write about, otherwise I would not concern myself with the subject matter. Thanks 

• Question: Focus on the Family is most certainly a hate group. It's an organization that teaches and encourages not only ill will, but the social outcasting of homosexuals. It exists entirely to indoctrinate children into a worldview that, in all reality, has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a social-political view pushed by a hate group that shrouds itself in a facade of Christianity, just like the KKK. Their challenge to anti-bullying legislation ought to be enough to tell you that, ya dingbat. - goodreasonnews
• Answer:

  I don’t intend to defend Focus on the Family, because I know they make mistakes and they can have a more positive approach.
  
  But from what I know and understand, they are far from what you assert. They do not call for social outcasting of homosexual (please back up your claims). It is a social-political view, no doubt, but it is based faithfully and entirely within ideological teaching of Christianity. 

  Partial mission statement: “nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.”

  Here, go to FoF’s page and without using the search tool, find the “anti-gay” bashing. Weird, this “hate” group doesn’t have it anywhere prominently. Hmm… try clicking “social issues.” Oh yes, there it is buried under “Defending your values.” FoF isn’t about being anti-gay it is about being Pro-Family first and allowing for children within their families to be given the option to be taught both side of the coin. 
  
  Your ascertain that it is “like the KKK” is stupid and foolish. The KKK’s primary purpose is “White Supremacy” which is entirely unchristian, therefore making any claims of christian association are automatically and fully ridiculous.  
  
  That is like calling myself a True Bruin (UCLA) through and through - as i sit in the USC student section with Cardinal and gold colors throwing up “V’s” and yelling “Beat the Bruins.” 

  
  Their challenge to the “anti-bullying” campaign has nothing to do with hate, and everything to do with the simply fact that that campaign is being used as a way for the “pro-gay agenda” to be pushed on every facet of society. Its so easy to ostracize anything that opposes the anti-bullying campaign (which you have shown here) so they should make their reasons clear and concise…
  
  Oh wait they did

  “We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled,” Cushman told the Post.

   But You are going to ignore that because it makes it conveniently easy to place it as “hateful.”
  
  In my opinion, FOF strategy here is dumb because it makes itself look bad. I disagree with their approach, they make themselves looked paranoid, but there is no denying that the anti-bullying campaign IS indeed hijacked to push an agenda. 
  
  Im sure you disagree, so please, return with facts proving the accuracy of their “hate” listing. 
  
  Oh and I totally appreciate the name calling. Classy touch. 

• Question: So you think it's a fact that homosexuality is always harmful, that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, that homosexuals can "turn straight" without any detrimental effects to their mental health, or any of the other lies that can be found on so-called "pro-family" websites? (Speaking of which, who are you to say what a "traditional family" is or is not, especially since traditions change? After all, what used to be traditional 100 years ago is not anymore.) - mrs-annie-odair
• Answer:

  Your argument is beginning to sound redundant. So please refer to an old answer I gave you a little while ago now: HERE instead or repeating myself.
  
  Traditions are old… if they change, then they usually take a while before they’re accepted as “tradition.” Their stance is pretty clear on what they mean by “pro-traditional family values” go research for yourself instead of just throwing up false things yourself.
  
  Now let me address your other question:
  
  

  Also, until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is “the truth,” you have no right to say that it is “the truth.” I mean, is it really so hard to respect others’ religious beliefs by not implying that they’re false? Also, have you ever actually looked at the Bible with a critical eye, instead of just blindly believing that it’s free of any sort of errors? Critical thinking isn’t a bad thing, you know. It’s certainly a lot safer and smarter than blind belief is.

   Because of your un-belief/or lack of faith, I cannot prove anything to you “beyond a shadow of a doubt” including gravity. If your mindset is stuck on un-belief then it will remain there.
  
  Regardless, my answer is: Jesus and Him Crucified and Resurrected. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is the most documented pre-printing press events in history. START HERE
  
  It is easy to respect other religions, but respect doesn’t mean something should be accepted. I respect Barry Bonds as an amazing (of the greatest) baseball players ever, but I do not accept what He did to the game (use of Steroids). Religions, every religion, that does not profess Christ as Lord/Savior is false. That can and will be said from my lips, doesn’t imply any disrespect. I in-fact greatly respect Islam for its persistent attention to detail, but I understand it as false.
  
  I study the Bible (almost daily). You might be shocked to find out the it is actually not 1 book but 66 Books by around 40 authors yet somehow they agree and compliment each other - despite not having read each other (with the exception of the Synoptic Gospels). Here’s some info for that: LINK
  
  You also might be shocked to find out that the Bible says not to have “blind faith”: 

  
   ”A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thoughts to his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15, NIV)

  Or as Dr. Dave Miller once wrote:
  
  

  The faith spoken of in the Bible is a faith that is preceded by knowledge. One cannot possess biblical faith in God until he or she comes to the knowledge of God. Thus, faith is not accepting what one cannot prove. Faith cannot outrun knowledge—for it is dependent upon knowledge (Romans 10:17). Abraham was said to have had faith only after he came to the knowledge of God’s promises and was fully persuaded (Romans 4:20-21). His faith, therefore, was seen in his trust and submission to what he knew to be the will of God. Biblical faith is attained only after an examination of the evidence, coupled with correct reasoning about the evidence.

  Critical thinking isn’t bad. Its Fantastic and its demanded by the Bible, which is the written instructions and Word of God.
   

• Question: Why do you think that schools shouldn't teach that homosexuality isn't a bad thing? I mean, if they did teach that, it'd help decrease the rate of anti-gay bullying. How can you possibly think that there's anything wrong with that? I mean, do you really care more about whether or not you're following the Bible literally than you do about whether or not innocent kids are being bullied for being gay? I mean, heck, I'm sure Jesus would be in support of schools teaching this, so why aren't you? - mrs-annie-odair
• Answer:

  You completely missed the point of the article.
  
  I am not against schools teaching about homosexuality, but I am for parents getting to tell kids about such matter and for schools being neutral on subjects of social/political stances as this. The Parents asked for Neutrality and that should not be denied. Some say homosexuality is bad (or a sin) some say it is fine. Schools are no longer teaching, they are indoctrinating. Schools should, if possible, provide both sides of the story, but they should always teach respect for individuals no matter their view.
  
  Your assumption that school teaching “homosexuality isn’t a bad thing will decrease the rate of anti-gay bullying” I must say is not accurate. People will be evil toward each other all the time, and especially in this case.
  
  Your comparison of following the Bible vs. Caring is kind of odd because, if you follow the Bible then you’d care about all people despite their sin/views etc. That said, Faith in Christ more important than anything. Thankfully for us Christians, Faith is Christ dictates our love for humanity, for the Gospel story is about Love.
  
  As it stands, kids should not be bullied for being gay (yes). Anyone that disagrees there is a jerk. The story I posted is nothing about that. I for one think this “anti-bullying” push is just a way for the Left to push their agenda on those that would like to see neutrality on the situation. AKA playing the victim card. This is not to say this is a sad, bad, and unfortunate problem - it is simply being used subversively, which I find disturbing in itself.
  
  You are sure Jesus would be in support… Im sorry, you aren’t even Christian yet you are telling me what my God would do? Jesus had quite a few things to say about government, yes, but He did not busy himself with trivial things like this. He focused on the Spiritual things/people individually.
  
  In my opinion, Jesus would befriend the downtrodden, the poor, the sinners (of all kind), and it is the Church’s responsibility to follow suit. The case I posted and what you are speaking about is about government/school district control on education curriculum and concerns. What would Jesus do in this case? He would work within the parameters that are set, delving into the lives of all he comes into contact with.
  
  The Districts parents have brought up a concern, and they should receive as much of a response as this issue as the other side of the aisle has received. 

Asking for Neutrality on Sexual Orientation Edu= Hate Listed?

If anyone deserves to be on the national “hate group” list, it’s the organization that claims to be in charge of it! Anyone who had doubts about Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) credibility has been proven right after the group named a local parents group to its ridiculous catalog of “haters.” According to SPLC, the Anoka-Hennepin Parents Action Team belongs in the same league as white supremacists because they asked a Minnesota school district to keep a policy of neutrality on homosexuality! During a long debate over Anoka-Hennepin’s bullying policy, six students sued the district with SPLC’s help, demanding that schools void the rule on homosexuality and move from impartiality to full acceptance. When the community opposed the decision, SPLC involved the U.S. Justice Department (which apparently has nothing better to do than team up with SPLC to harass a local school board).

Ultimately, the district capitulated and agreed to a five-year anti-bullying partnership with DOJ. Now, to punish parents—whose only request is that schools don’t undermine the values they teach at home—SPLC is attempting to silence the group. Clearly, SPLC is not the independent arbiter that liberals make it out to be. On one hand, they advocate for homosexuality, and on the other, they try to stigmatize and marginalize the opposition. It’s like giving SPLC the chance to referee and play in the same game!

What’s even more disturbing is the DOJ’s role in all of this. What authority does it have to barge in and exert pressure on a school district when there is no federal discrimination statute for sexual orientation? On a regulatory level, this seems a little fishy. Could it be that there’s collusion between the SPLC and DOJ? Regardless, the parents of Anoka-Hennepin don’t seem bothered by their new status. “It is a privilege to be added to the long list of pro-family organizations that have been labeled as ‘hate groups.’” Laurie Thompson said. “The SPLC continues their strategy of defaming those whom they disagree with.”

—-

- Family Research Council: LINK

- Note* - The Family Research Council is also listed among the “Hate Groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center… wow (Link): Because being Pro-Traditional Marriage/Pro-Family Value = HATE (against Gays).

Back check the facts of both sides before you make a decision, that said, what do you think?