Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 2)

If you make your son go to bed at 8 P.M. when he's a five-year-old, but you let him stay up later when he's fifteen, are you an inconsistent hypocrite? Advocates of homosexual marriage often accuse their opponents of being inconsistent and hypocritical. For instance, why do you want to base our nation's public policy on Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality, but you don't want us to have laws based on something like the dietary rules found in the Pentateuch? Or if you think the government has reason to give preferential treatment to the heterosexual relationship, because that relationship can biologically produce children, then why don't you outlaw marriage between infertile heterosexuals? Aren't opponents of homosexual marriage being inconsistent and hypocritical?

But all that opponents of homosexual marriage are doing is applying the same sort of reasoning that advocates of homosexual marriage accept in other contexts. The Bible distinguishes between something like homosexuality, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, something like the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law. The dietary laws are said to have been fulfilled by Jesus and to no longer be binding as they were in the past (Mark 7:19, Romans 14, Colossians 2:16-17). By contrast, no such thing is said or implied about homosexuality. To the contrary, the New Testament repeatedly condemns it (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 7), and the earliest patristic Christians reaffirmed that condemnation. We distinguish between laws that are still in force and laws no longer in force. Just as we do that with the Bible, we also do it in other contexts in life. If a five-year-old boy is told to go to bed at 8 P.M., it doesn't follow that the parents are doing something wrong if they don't enforce that bedtime when their son is fifteen. Some rules only serve a temporary purpose or are only meant to apply in some contexts, not all contexts. We apply laws to non-citizens that we don't apply to citizens. The government acts by different standards during wartime than during times of peace. Etc.

What about the issue of infertile heterosexual couples, which I mentioned above? It seems that the advocate of homosexual marriage is making a faulty assumption here. Why think that the ability to biologically produce children is the only relevant factor? That factor is often highlighted by opponents of homosexual marriage, because it's one of the distinctions between the two types of relationship. But it doesn't follow that no other factor is to be taken into consideration when judging whether infertile heterosexuals should be allowed to be married. Even though that couple can't produce children, there are other reasons for allowing them to be married. For one thing, our marriage laws already allow it. Even if you think a mistake was made by allowing it, we crossed that bridge a long time ago. By contrast, homosexual marriage isn't yet recognized in most places, it's still in an early stage even where it's been recognized by the state, and it involves far fewer people. Such distinctions warrant differentiating between the two situations. Outlawing marriage of infertile heterosexuals would require a lot of additional effort and turmoil that wouldn't accompany retaining a rejection of homosexual marriage that's already in place or overturning homosexual marriage where it recently gained acceptance. Furthermore, it wouldn't be practical for the state to get involved in trying to judge when couples are and aren't fertile. By contrast, we know that a rejection of homosexual marriage is practical. We've been doing it for hundreds of years, and we're still doing it in most places. Considerations like these have to be taken into account. To act as though marriage between infertile heterosexuals is in the same category as marriage between homosexuals is simplistic.

Even if opponents of homosexual marriage are inconsistent and hypocritical by not opposing marriage between infertile heterosexuals, how does pointing out that inconsistency answer their underlying argument for giving preferential treatment to one type of marriage over another? An argument that's not applied consistently can be a valid argument, despite the inconsistency in its application. Does society benefit from the heterosexual relationship in ways in which the homosexual relationship doesn't benefit society? Yes, at least in some cases. (Later, I'll argue that it's so in all cases. But I'm setting that aside for now.) If we have good reason to give preferential treatment to at least some heterosexual relationships, then simply saying that the people who make that point don't apply it consistently is an insufficient response. A good argument applied inconsistently remains a good argument.


 http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/questions-to-ask-advocates-of_27.html?

Homosexuality and Homosexual Now in the Boy Scouts of America

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=40372&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0524

GRAPEVINE, Texas (BP) -- Delegates to the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Thursday (May 23) approved new membership guidelines which open the ranks of the organization to homosexual members. Young men who openly claim to be homosexual may now participate as Scouts.

The decision, the BSA leadership said in a statement, was based on "growing input from within the Scouting family." That input led to a national review of policy, or a "comprehensive listening exercise," resulting in a resolution to remove the restriction "denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone."

Some 1,400 delegates to the National Council approved the change in membership standards by a margin of 61-39 percent, but changes to the adult leadership policy of the organization, which forbids homosexual Scout leaders, was not up for vote and remains in place. Rules on sexual misconduct, heterosexual and homosexual, also remain in place for Scouts and Scout leaders.

Continues on the website.

Just let me say, we are no longer and have not been a Christian nations for some time now.  

And for some that is okay for they are not Christians anyway, and don't want to be.  There fore that is not a problem for them to see what we are seeing in a lot of organizations.


What is really  bad if I might say: now they are encouraging the youth to bee \open about their homosexual.  Sexual orientation should be kept in the house.

Same-Sex Marriage as a Civil Right — Are Wrongs Rights?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

We should have seen it coming. Back in 1989 two young activists pushing for the normalization of homosexuality coauthored a book intended to serve as a political strategy manual and public relations guide for their movement. In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance. Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”
Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue that homosexuals were a class of citizens denied basic civil liberties, and that the courts should declare them to be a protected class, using civil rights precedents to force a moral and legal revolution.
That revolution has happened, and it has been stunningly successful. The advocates for the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage have used legal arguments developed from the civil rights era to their advantage. Arguments used to end the scourge of racial segregation were deployed to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Over the years, these arguments have led to such major developments as the decriminalization of homosexual behaviors, the inclusion of homosexuals within the United States military, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states.

When Rights are Right

Related Posts

• Fair is Fair? Where the Logic of Civil Unions or Same-Sex Marriage Must Lead
• “Rights Talk” in California — Confusing the Same-Sex Marriage Issue
• Day One for Civil Unions in the UK — What Does it Mean?
• Civil Unions in Connecticut
• The Massachusetts Court Goes for Broke: No Civil Unions

What should Christians think about this? We do believe in civil rights. Taken at face value, civil rights are those rights that a person should be recognized to possess simply because he or she is a citizen. Christians should welcome the recognition of civil rights, understanding that the very notion of such rights is based on a Christian worldview and the affirmation that every human being is made in God’s image, and therefore possesses dignity and certain essential rights. In the language of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Even as secularists do their best to establish some grounding for civil rights without reference to God, the founding language of our nation—in agreement with biblical principles—clearly affirms that these liberties are given to all people by the Creator.
Beyond this fact, we must be thankful that an expanding understanding of civil rights has led our nation to address wrongs and to make moral progress in ending wrongful discrimination. The civil rights movement of the late twentieth century saw America come face to face with the reality that, as a nation, we were not living up to our own commitment to those rights.
The key question we now face is this: Does recognition of civil rights for all people require the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage?
That is precisely what gay rights proponents have been claiming for the past thirty years, and their arguments have gained much ground. In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down criminal laws against homosexual behavior in the decision known as Lawrence v. Texas. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the Constitution does not allow for the criminalization of homosexual acts, since such laws would deny a specific class of persons their basic civil rights. A series of similar court decisions has followed, with several courts ruling that outlawing same-sex marriage is a similar denial of a civil right.

When Rights Are Wrong

At this point Christians have to think very carefully. We do not want to deny anyone his or her civil rights. To do so would not only violate the Constitution but also deny the rights that are granted, not by the government, but by the Creator. But is same-sex marriage such a right? The answer to that question must be no.
Marriage laws always discriminate. Current laws discriminate on the basis of age, marital status, and gender, as well as a host of other issues. The law itself necessarily discriminates. For instance, married people pay fewer taxes and women enjoy maternity leave. The question is whether such discrimination is right or wrong.
Discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable characteristic such as skin color would be wrong. But Christians cannot accept the argument that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. While recognizing the complexity of issues related to sexual orientation, we cannot define a behavior as an intrinsic characteristic. On that basis, why not grant theft or other sinful behavior the same civil rights protection?
Furthermore, we recognize that marriage, like human rights, exists prior to the law. Christians understand that marriage was instituted by the Creator, who designed marriage and the family as the foundational social unit of human society. Marriage unites a man and a woman in a holy covenant that should last as long as they both live.
From the very beginning, marriage was designed as the union of one man and one woman. Every human society has recognized this meaning of marriage, and all successful civil societies have honored, protected, and defended heterosexual marriage as the union that should govern human sexuality, reproduction, intimacy, and rearing of children.
Those pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage have been tremendously successful in convincing many people—and several courts—of their argument that same-sex marriage is a civil right. But this is a confusion of categories that Christians cannot accept.
The argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage fails in terms of any constitutional logic that our nation’s founders would have conceived. Beyond this, faithful Christians cannot accept such arguments because an even greater authority—the authority of the Bible as the Word of God—binds us.
The Bible is clear in terms of its teachings on both sexuality and marriage. As Jesus Christ declared, God intended marriage as the union of one man and one woman “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:4–6). The legalization of same-sex marriage would confuse and greatly weaken the single institution that is most central to human society and most essential to human flourishing.
Christians responding to demands for the legalization of same-sex marriage cannot accept the argument that the right to marry a person of the same gender is a civil right.
We are living in an era of moral revolution and seismic cultural change. Christians must remember that our ultimate authority is the Word of God. We are thankful for the recognition of civil rights, but we also understand that these rights will be confused in a sinful world. We must understand that the claim that same-sex marriage is a civil right reveals more than constitutional confusion—it reveals the need of every human being for nothing less than the forgiveness, healing, and redemption that can come only through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
At the end of the day, the argument over same-sex marriage is never just about same-sex marriage, and debates about civil rights are never just about civil rights. Deeper truths and worldview implications are always at stake, and it is our responsibility to make certain that we know what those are and stand humbly and compassionately for those truths, regardless of the cost.

---

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

This article originally appeared in the April-June issue of Answers, published by Answers in Genesis. View here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n2/gay-marriage-civil-rights

How To Aswer the Critics About O.T. Laws

 

;;;;

]]]]]

 

;

My Thoughts on Homsextuality

What About Homsexualtity Video

The Gospel and the Gay Moral Revolution

Albert Mohler:

In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.

This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is what we truly believe.

It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.

My hope is that evangelicals are ready now to take on this challenge in a new and more faithful way. We really have no choice, for we are talking about our own brothers and sisters, our own friends and neighbors, or maybe the young person in the next pew.
There is no escaping the fact that we are living in the midst of a moral revolution. And yet, it is not the world around us that is being tested, so much as the believing church. We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach.

 

 

How Would You Take To a person who is a Homo.

Pier Moran Tonight on CNN (who took over for Larry King) interview Joel Oseen. Not also Peir's remarks.




Reading MMI Weblog today and found these videos.

HOW TO DEAL WITH HOMOSEXUALITY

NO MATTER WHAT

THE SIN IS,

HOMOSEXUALITY

OR ANYTHING

ELSE, GOD HAS PROVIDED

FORGIVENESS,

SALVATION,

AND THE HOPE OF

ETERNAL LIFE TO

THOSE WHO REPENT

AND EMBRACE THE

GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST

Many of you already know by now, the California Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Does the Bible abide by the California ruling?

They stood and applauded Ellen D on her show as she announced she was finally getting married. To my knowledge, she doesn't claim to be a Bible Christian. Sin is sin if you are a Christian or if you are a Catholic, or even a non-believer in God.

Sin is that which God has deemed (which we do or don't do) is not to His glory.

• Of course we have watched for years this surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. "Whether it's at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interest has come to characterize America." John MacArthur

To think of the success of this agenda, even some national churches have wavered on this issue. To think now, many folks are wavering on this issue that marriage could be man to man and woman with woman. While sin is sin, living with unmarried man and woman is not the same as man with man, I don't think.

A few years ago, ten maybe, your sexual life was not talked about; but if it were, and you were a homosexual, you were not looked upon as normal. Rock Hudson kept this secret until near his death.

Today, it's out in the open. So how should we respond to the success of this agenda that the homosexual community of a few have? Should we just accept this recent trend toward tolerance? Should we just exclude homosexuals with hostility and dislike?

Of course. in my youth we never knew who was a homosexual; therefore, the issue was never an issue. Today, it's okay in many circles to be a homosexual. In the workplace, in the sports field, in college, you now know those who are homosexual. And it seems you really have to balance your response about this issue.

Of course, some advocates have been rather successful or effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address this issue.

Ask a homosexual what the Bible says about their lifestyle. They will almost to the person say, "I could be a Christian and still have my lifestyle."

Might I say, any pro-homosexual arguments from the Word of God are nothing but strawmen, that is smokescreens.

The activity is the sin. While all men and women are sinners, the activity is sin as well. If God condemns an activity, it is sin. IF the state of California says it's ok, God doesn't change his mind on the issue.

WHY DOES GOD CHARGE THE ACT OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS SIN?

First, it changes God's fundamental design for human relationship - a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25, Matthew 19:4-6 and Ephesians 5:22-23) You understand that the Christian's first position is to take the view of Scripture.

You rightly ask, "Then why are so many people, and even Christians, persuaded to believe what the homosexuals have said the Bible is saying about their lifestyle?" While the Bible is really clear about this issue, this is rather simple. PEOPLE WANT TO BE CONVINCED. Sinners, Christians and Non-Christians have to defy reason and truth and accept error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). Man would rather believe a lie than the truth to cover up their own deeds of sinful living.

While as I learn of some people that I like, are now open about their lifestyles, I must not be hostile toward them. At the same time, I must not yield to say it's now okay to have this lifestyle, since the Courts are saying it's okay.

As Christians we are to uphold the Word of God, not the Courts of the United States in matters that are Biblical. We are not to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their view of what is sin. Their arguments are without substance.

You can read all the new translations you want to try to convince yourself that lifestyles different from what Scriptures teach is right, and you will still be wrong.

With all this said, there is another side to this. We are to be Biblical in our approach to this issue as we would be to any sinful behavior and to anyone who is in error of their living.

In reality, a person who has not been freed from the bondage of sin, is not free from sinful activity. They really can't see the sinfulness of sin. They are not necessarily being defiant, they really just can't see why what they are doing is wrong.

It's the same I believe, when you are trying to convince a person to become a Christian, and they will say, "Why, I am already a Christian." In their mind they do not see the reason why they are sinners, and God is not accepting of them. Many people are offended when you say they are not going to Heaven unless they are born again. They really believe they are going to Heaven, because God loves all people, and He and Peter will allow all people who are good to enter into Heaven. Isn't that what the world says?

If you have a friend who is homosexual, what do you do? First, don't accept his interpretation of Scripture as truth. It's not. Secondly, do not be intimidated. Because you shouldn't be. Don't get hostile, name calling, or whatever you might like to say. Do as you would be with any person who is not a Christian. If asked what you believe about their lifestyle, don't back down. But also do it as an act of love toward the sinner, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8.

They might say, "I am a Christian." They might say, "The Bible doesn't say it's wrong." Make sure you understand what the Scripture is saying before you speak so you won't get it wrong. However, remember that only God, by the Holy Spirit, can change hearts and beliefs about their sinful activities.

What you are trying to do is not to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring convictions so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners- - and that's through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

-

BEHAVIOR SUCH AS ANNA SMITH AND BRITNEY'S IS AND WAS SINFUL AND SO IS HOMOSEXUALITY? THERE IS A COMMONALITY IN THESE BEHAVIOR:

A supernatural change of our disposition which results in repentance and belief in the gospel... and this new disposition of heart means our delight is in the law of God.

Anna Nicole Smith legal saga slogs on: Brit freaks again as train wreck rolls on :

vs Homosexuality?

Homosexuality ... in the church ... ? The argument that the defenders of this position are making is, "...this is the way they were born, they can't change ... it is cruel to make them change."

My answer: why should homosexuality get singled out above all other sins? Is this sin uniquely exempt from repentance?

The gospel tells us that we ALL cannot change and each of us is in a similar condition to the homosexual, prior to regeneration. We are all born with a condition that we cannot change: Its called total depravity. By nature we are all morally impotent to obey God's commands let alone believe the gospel ... yet we all remain culpable for these transgressions (Rom 3:19, 20).

If homosexuality can be exempt because people claim that they are born that way, then I guess this makes us all exempt from repenting of our various sins that we cannot naturally escape from ... this basically renders Christianity void of all supernatural truth.

If God cannot change any of us then the future is indeed bleak for us all because it means that Christianity is false. But in truth, homosexuality is just like any other sin.

Homosexual Unions?

If I am born a bigot and a man of pride and cannot change this by nature, does this exempt me from obedience to God in this area? Shall I give up trying to change my coveting because I was born with such a desire? Any so-called church, therefore, that encourages homosexual unions or any other sin (Matt 5:19) has therefore abandoned the faith and has embraced a cultural construct for which they will be held accountable.

ATTITUDE TOWARD THOSE IN SINFUL BEHAVIOR

This also includes those who are against people who are homosexuals, or those whose behavior is like those in Hollywood. We all must also repent of their sin of trusting in their own righteousness because God didn't save you because you were pure or because of something good He saw in you but rather, because of His sheer grace, plus nothing.

The Baptist, the Reformer, or all us us are as equally deserving of God's wrath as the homosexual. Nor does God sustain us because we are pure but solely because of the blood of Jesus Christ. It is on Him alone we can plead forgiveness.

We don't need moral reformation in our lives (band-aid) but need to be born again.

• A supernatural change of our disposition which results in repentance and belief in the gospel... and this new disposition of heart means our delight is in the law of God.
  

Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant

Draft

HOW IS THE BELIEVER TO RESPOND TO THE DEBATE ON HOMOSEXAULITY

PART FIVE

Homosexuality is portrayed by many in government, in public education and in our colleges and universities as just one of many normal, legitimate lifestyle choices. Those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle on moral and religious grounds are usually portrayed by the intellectual elite, the media and the entertainment industry as ignorant bigots who are full of hatred, "homophobic," and so on. It is true that some people hate homosexuals. Some people even engage in "gay bashing." But it must be remembered that people who engage in such activities are sinning against God; they are not at all living in accordance with the law of Christ

The people who claim to be compassionate toward homosexuals by excusing and approving of their perverse behavior are liars and false teachers. Their attempts to reinterpret the Bible to make it accepting of homosexuality are nothing more than pitiful excuses made for those who do not want to repent. They are leading homosexuals down the broad path which leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13). They are the true enemies of the homosexual community.

It is no surprise that the unbelieving world practices such sins. However, it should be noted that this type of behavior is being increasingly accepted, and in some cases encouraged, within the Church. What does this say about the spiritual condition of the Church today?


Homosexuals are not to be singled out and rallied against by Christians. Their sin is no greater than anyone else’’s. It was James who said more damage is done by the tongue than by any other sin. Christians need to be careful not to gather up our self-righteous robes and attack a particular sin that we, ourselves, do not struggle with. We are to examine this subject as sinners redeemed by grace, not as superiors with authority. Nevertheless, the Church needs to be clear on what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. My concern is not that the world has deemed homosexuality an acceptable form of sexual expression, but that the Church has willingly done so.

When emotions and feelings become part of the consideration in an issue such as homosexuality, we begin to question the validity of the Bible. Thoughts creep in such as, "I know that person who said he’s gay. He’s pretty nice. He doesn’t cause any problems. I respect his opinion in class. He publicly displayed his faith in Christ last year. What’s the big deal? Let’s just go on with our lives and not make an issue out of his homosexuality." That all may be true, but Christians are not called to "get on with our lives." They are called to take a biblical stand with Christian love. The character of Christ must characterize all who are believers in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Often, those who are genuine Bible-believing Christians are called "narrow-minded," "judgmental," and "bigots" because of the stand taken against the things welcomed by the world. The stand Jesus Christ took against all sin, however, could not be any clearer. He was perhaps the most "narrow-minded," "judgmental," "bigoted" person to ever walk the face of the earth, as viewed by this world’’s standards

Within the homosexuality debate is the argument that claims scriptural acceptance of homosexuals. A leader in this movement recently asserted that Scripture forbids only the act of homosexual prostitution. He asserts that a monogamous homosexual relationship based on love is within the bounds of a scriptural relationship. He said, "If homosexual students on Christian campuses do not find support, they will go outside of the school to find it. If gay students can’t date on campus, where are they going to find someone to share their life with?" How does this question have anything to do with the issue? Are we to believe that we cannot tell a homosexual he is in sin, because he might leave the campus of a Christian school, without finding a homosexual, lifelong partner? The Apostle Paul instructed Christians on how to deal with such situations. He said, "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:5).

For believers, the pressure from the world to conform to its’ standards is intense. Romans 12:1, 2 reminds us how we are to live as children of God. Paul says, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." When believers allow themselves to be harnessed by the standards of this world, they are being conformed, rather than transformed.

Any form of conduct or behavior that the Christian believes the Bible calls sin, usually is looked upon by the world, society, cultural "narrow-minded," "judgmental," "bigoted". The term "Christian" has to be define biblically Today just about anyone can be called a "Christian." When in fact they according to the teaching of the Bible, they are not.

Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant 02 22 07

DOES THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND BELIEVERS HAVE A NEED TO RESPOND TO THE ETHICS OF TODAY

Part Four

ETHIC

• An area of philosophical and theological inquiry into what constitutes right and wrong, that is, morality, as well as what is the good and the good life. Ethics seeks to provide insight, principles, or even a system of guidance in the quest of the good life or in acting rightly in either general or specific situations of life. Broadly speaking, ethical systems are either deontological (seeking to guide behavios through establishment or discovery of what is intrinsically right and wrong) or teleological (seeking to guide behavior through an understanding of the outcomes or ends that ethical decisions and behavior bring about). - Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms

In my last three articles on Homosexuality there have been several responses to the issue at hand: Here is one:

Charles, February 20, 2007
I have often thought about this issue and how the local church should respond to it. When Paul speaks to his audience about sexual impurity or homosexuality, it is always in the context of "…and such were some of you". Paul is speaking to God’s chosen people, advising them to "put off" the sins of the flesh and to "put on"righteousness. Do we in the Church have any more to say about how unbelievers conduct themselves concerning sexual behavior than any other of Paul’s list of "put off’s" except when their behavior has a societal dimension, such as when giving false testimony in court or preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Paul was not concerned with changing the greater culture, which is fallen. He was concerned about believers becoming sanctified for the glory of Christ.

When arguing from the pulpit against issues involving homosexuality as a rule of law for everyone we risk going beyond our area of responsibility, I think. We really are attempting to impose a standard of behavior on people for whom obedience to God’s Word is not a concern and in whom the Holy Spirit is not operative, in order to preserve a position of cultural dominence. The Church in America is mostly concerned about preserving political power and the cultural status quo rather than focusing on God’s power to change us individually, from within. Of course, to our congregants, we have every obligation to argue, as Paul did, that God’s people ought to "put off" these behaviors, even if the desires remain.

I am not saying we have no cause to preach against the policies that can have a grave impact on our society. We live in a democracy and we do have responsibilities to think Biblically in the public arena when we cast our vote. Speaking against gay marriage, for example, in light of God’s design for marriage is something we ought to do. However, when we spend time railing against a culture where homosexuality is becoming more acceptable, we are planting the seeds for a "fortress" mentality. We create an "us" vs. "them" dynamic.

All of us come to the cross with patterns of sinfulness, but, in Christ, we are called to put off the flesh. When we focus on the specific sinful behavior of others, I think we are in danger of missing the mote in our own eye and avoiding the mortification of our own flesh. The net effect is that nobody changes.

The sorry fact is that the Church looks mostly like the world because we still want what the world has to offer. We in the Church should focus more on the body and less on the world. Perhaps then, we might see changed lives and have more impact on the world.

We are in need of radical amputation, yet we will settle for a band-aid. Consider how the media reacted to the Amish community after the killing of children in school. Think how the Amish responded. Our country and world becomes more evil by the day, yet we are more like the frog in the pot of warm water. At what point do we jump out so that we are still able to pull others out before it is too late?

Rick Warner

Is the Bible Ambiguous about Homosexuality

Homosexual "Marriage": A Tragic Oxymoron--Biblical and Cultural Reflections

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Homosexuality: Fact or Fiction

CHRISTIANS AND HOMOSEXUAL? IS THIS POSSIBLE?

What is the Christians's Response to those who are Homosexuals?

Discerning the Will of God - Marriage?

An Analysis: Biblically of Homosexuality

Is Homosexuality really Gay?

Definitions of Terms

What is the churches's response to the cultural trends today?

HERE IT IS! . . . . . . . . . . .

A supernatural change of our disposition which results in repentance and belief in the gospel... and this new disposition of heart means our delight is in the law of God.

Next thread some responses to this subject:

TAKING A LOOK AT THE TERMS USED IN THIS HOMOSEXUAL DETABE

Part Three

The term "homophobic" has changed several times invited ........ read on.

The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against ... The label of internalized homophobia is sometimes applied to conscious or ...

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.

The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.

• The word homophobia was rarely used early in the twentieth century to mean "fear or hatred of the male sex or humankind". In this use, the word derived from the Latin root homo (Latin, "man" or "human") with the Greek ending -phobia ("fear")

In its more recent usage, dating from 1969, "homophobia" derives from the -phobia ending applied, not to the Latin root "homo", but to a shortening of homosexual. (Here, homo comes not from the Latin for "man", but from the Greek for "same"; see homosexual.) The word first appeared in print in the American Time magazine, 31st October edition.It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:
"Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it."

HOMONEGATIVITY
Some recent psychological literature has suggested the term homonegativity, reflecting the perspective that behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are not fear-based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality

What is Homophobia?

• The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry.[1] Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobia.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word homophobia was originally used to mean "fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex". However, from 1969 the term has been more frequently used with its present meaning.

The first time it appeared in print was in the American Time magazine, where it was coined by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965,[2] and popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. It combines the Greek term phobos, meaning "fear" or "panic", and the root homo from the word "homosexual", which originates in the Greek word homos, meaning "the same". A possible etymological precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Dr Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.

Just as some people use the term "homophobia" to stress the association between prejudice and a fear or medical disorder, others Sexism, sexualism, heterosexism, heterosexualism, and "homosexualism" have been proposed as alternatives which are more morphologically parallel, and which do not have the association with phobia. Sexism refers to sexual discrimination and hatred and may be extended to include discrimination and hatred based on both sex and sexuality (sexual-identity/sexual-orientation/hypersexuality). Sexualism refers to hatred against homosexuals (gays/lesbians) and bisexuals. Heterosexism refers to hatred against people who are not heterosexual. Heterosexualism is an ambiguous term which is used either as a synomym for heterosexuality or heterosexism. The term "homosexualism" is a rarely-used synonym of homosexuality. Queer Theory and critical theory use the terms heterocentric and heteronormativity to refer to similar ontological assumptions.

As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.

There is also considerable debate over the term's usage as a label for opponents of certain categories of social policy, with the debate centering upon the question of whether such opposition is a legitimate moral stance or indefensible discrimination, and whether or not there are reasons other than fear and misunderstanding that might justify such positions. As in cases such as the Santorum controversy, many have alleged that the term is often used as a means of demonizing and silencing political opponents without regard to their actual motives; those on the other side of the debate argue that the motives in such cases are always connected with bigotry or fear.

Fear of being identified as a homosexual
A component considered to play into homophobia, as considered by some theorists, such as Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler, is an individual's fear of being identified as homosexual him or herself.

This notion suggests that when expressing homophobic viewpoints and emotions, the individual who does so is not only expressing his thoughts as to homosexuals, but also actively attempting to distance himself from this category and attributed social status. Therefore, by distancing him or herself from the people in question, he/she is reaffirming his/her role as a heterosexual, within heteronormativity, and contributing to the avoidance of his/her potential labeling and consequent treatment as a homosexual.

This interpretation plays into notions of violent opposition to "the Other" as a means of establishing one's identity as part of the majority and therefore, validated by society. This concept is also recurrent in interpretations of racism and xenophobia.

Many social and religious attitudes toward homosexuality are negative, which some might describe as a form of prejudice.

Sexist beliefs
Some gender theorists interpret the fact that male-to-male relationships often incite a stronger reaction in a homophobic person than female-to-female (lesbian) as meaning that the homophobic person feels threatened by the perceived subversion of the gender paradigm in male-to-male sexual activity. According to such theorists as D.A. Miller, male heterosexuality is defined not only by the desire for women but also, and more importantly, by the denial of desire for men. Therefore, expressions of homophobia serve as a means of limiting those who they view as displaced in heteronormativity, and also of accenting their male nature, by isolating the threatening concept of their own potential feminity in gay men, and consequently belittling them, as not real males. They regard the reason male homosexuality is treated worse compared to female homosexuality as sexist in its underlying belief that men are superior to women and therefore for a man to "replace" a woman during intercourse with another man is his own subjection to (non-male) inferiority.



Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant and proof checked by Charity Whisnant

WORLDVIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Part Two

Scripture clearly teaches that homosexuality is an inhumanity to God. That is offensive to many people today. While homosexuality has been a part of the world’s culture since the beginning of mankind, mankind who have engaged in this practice, have kept their lifestyle in the "closet". Laws in our country have always been to discourage this kind of lifestyle.

Lifestyles of mankind have always run a muck against the normal behavior of man, and laws of our government have tried to bring some kind of control to our behavior. Men have always broken the laws of the government and the laws of God. But they have been considered breaking the Laws.

Now we come into the 21st Century and we are finding ourselves in a culture that no longer calls a muck behavior wrong. There used to be a law that said, divorce was not allowed, there was a time that sex with someone other than your marriage pardner was wrong, there was a time that sex before marriage was wrong. And sex with another of the same gender was wrong. In this 21st Century Culture we are quickly coming to a climate that all the above is now considered a matter of choice.

Today when you speak the truth as Bible-believing Christians see the Word of God, and we speak out against what God considers wrong behavior, the media will say "He is lashing out at him because of his lifestyle." "They are ranting, fussing and fuming, out against the "gay" community,

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is still in the Bible, (at last count it was still in the KJV, NASV, etc) "or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (unmanly) nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (slander) nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (NASB)

Just a note here, please note that Paul said, "such were some of you." Under Divine inspiration Paul reminds those early believers of the fact that outside of God’s redeeming and cleansing grace they would be in the same predicament as those involved in a degenerate life style.
Our culture today is quickly being pulled into an arbitrary way of thinking. If someone really believes they were born with the homosexual genes then they should be accepted as normal sexual lifestyle. The list in I Corinthians contains ten behaviors of sinfulness, and they all have the same results. We all SIN and come short of the Glory of God. It’s God’s Grace that Sanctified us by His GRACE.

In my thinking this issue is impregnable.

Difficult or impossible to overcome or refute successfully; beyond question or criticism; as, an impregnable argument

What God had written down in the Scripture is still today the same. There is this moral relativism in America that is putting today’s current culture above the Scripture. It’s called, I believe, The New Apostle Paul Perspective, which is saying, what Paul was saying in 65 A.D. is not what he would say today.

It’s much like taking today’s cultural belief and putting them into the culture of even twenty- five years ago. I don’t remember ever reading in the News or seeing the Media talk twenty-five years ago about the rights of men and women in their sexual lifestyles.

Christian commentator Gregory Koukl, in a personal essay titled Heterosexism, objects to the medicalization of a moral position:

• The word homophobia has come to describe any kind of opposition to homosexuality of any sort, but it’s interesting that part of their (homosexuals') goal was to shift the emphasis from what many perceived to be a homosexual problem, away from the homosexual activity itself, and towards the attitude people have about homosexuality... They purposely did this to change the focus of the discussion from the morality of their activity and the social appropriateness of their lifestyle to the attitudinal bias of those who would judge them.
  Koukl, Gregory,"Stand to Reason" (radio program); "Heterosexism".
  
  Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant and Check by Charity Whisnant 02 17 07

"HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS VIEW TIM HARDAWAY'S WORDS TOWARDS HOMOSEXAULS?"

part one

Too many people jumped to a consussion when they heard some of Tim Hardaway's remarks. Of course the media only wanted to quote "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known."

Former NBA All-Star and Miami Heat guard Tim Haraway was asked about the coming out of another former NBA player about his sexuality.

The media picked up on the "I hate gay people." So did a few Christians. And jumped on Tim's remarks. Rather than the focus on sexual behavior of the homosexual they jumped on Tim's hate of homosexuality.

I don't know Tim Hardaway, but when asked in the moment of time, he most likely did respond in a non political manner. If he really hates people who are homosexual than he has a wrong view.

Erik at irishcalvinist.com said, "I do not want to stand with Tim Hardaway and others who verbally express murder in their hearts." Erik doesn't know that about Tim.

If Tim Hardaway was expressing his hatred for the sin of homosexaulity than I would stand with him.

This is not the purpose of this blog today. Rather in the next several threads to deal with the worldview of homosexuality:

WORLDVIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY

We are seeing over the last several years, our culture being dominated by radical individualism and radical subjectivity.... what's true for me is true for me. (quote)

• "Our culture is dominated by radical individualism and a radical subjectivity; what's true for me is true for me," Tonkowich observes

• The ECLA and other denominations often rely on this kind of "subjective truth" and moral relativism when setting guidelines, the Institute spokesman asserts. "Rather than submitting to the authority of the scriptures and the authority of the church, it's every man for himself and every woman for herself," he says. "We're in a position not unlike what was in the [Bible's] Book of Judges, where the refrain is 'and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.'

Another Example:

• Tim Hardaway, was a NBA Miami Heat player, and a very good one, who spoke out about John Amaechi (another NBA roll player) who came out about his homosexual life style. Amaechi didn’t come out until he was out of the NBA.

What is interesting, NO ONE has ever said they were homosexual publically while playing in the NBA. If the NBA were ok with this lifestyle, you would think those who were "gay" would be free to say it. Now that it’s out, the press asks the questions. Those who are positive about the lifestyle are treated well, but when Tim Hardaway stated his position he is murdered by the media.

Amaechi "Believes homophobia is rampant in and out of sports." He should know. He played in the NBA.
Amaechi went on to say
"People in America and England would like to think racism is over, sexism is over, and homophobia is over, but it’s not." "It’s hard to get straight guys to step up,"

"Anti-gay rant" is the phrase the media uses when people speak out against homosexuality.

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS A CHOICE OF LIFE STYLE
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: DIRECTION

While sexual behavior of all choices have been since the creation of mankind, God has set forth His choice of sexual behavior for mankind. From the start of mankind, man has refused to obey most of God commands. We should not be too surprised at man’s reactions

What God has set forth for mankind’s behavior is well stated in His Word the Bible. We have God’s Word on the subject and then we have man’s word on the subject.

As a Biblical believing Christian and minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am personally bound to what the Word of God says in it’s entirety. I should not be subjective in my own thinking about any issue without first understanding God’s position. I should not embellish, diminish, or insert my own preference into what the Word of God is saying. With that said, I must with all my thinking, believe and recognize the truth of God’s Word on the subject of sexual behavior, be it sex outside of marriage of any kind. The Word I believe directs us to believe that any sex outside of marriage is SIN, that is, that which we do against the will of God.

I do not apologize for my belief that has been formed by my understanding of the Word of God.

Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant and Proof Checked by Charity Whisnant 02 16 07

WHY DID THE SNICKERS COMMERCIAL FROM THE SUPER BOWL GET PULLED?
How is the Christian to Interpret the Message of Homosexuality:
The Worldview versus the Biblical Worldview

I am sure that most biblical Christians have come to a biblical Christian Worldview about this matter of homosexuality..

But at every turn, the culture of our society continues to enforce this idea that homosexuality is a natural form of lifestyle that should be accepted by our society.

While over the last 200 years of American history, homosexuality has been deemed as a practice that is not natural behavior of mankind. 200 years. While homosexuality has been around from Sodom since Genesis, its practice has not been accepted as normal behavior.
Without question, the thinking of any society is formed by its culture that is set forth by those who put their ideas on a society.

In my lifetime, the changes continue yearly. Here I am talking about the moral condition of the society in which we live. I am now speaking of the society of America.

Language changes yearly. Terms to describe ideas and people change yearly.

What we believed was Biblical twenty years ago, we no longer accept as biblical today.
Have you heard that what Paul believed in 62 A.D. he would not believe in 2007...... what he would say about homosexuality in 63 A.D., he would have a different view today. The New Perspective Theology it is called.


There was a time that Christians had an influence on the society in which they lived. Today the Christian Worldview is losing its power of influence.

Who would ever have believed that we would have TV series that have homosexual characters? Who would ever have thought that homosexual behavior would be treated as normal behavior?. Who would have ever thought that on talk tv that homosexual parents would be viewed as a normal lifestyle? Who would have thought that any kind of remark that is viewed unkindly by the homosexual society would cost you your job? Movies now glorify homosexuality and malign heterosexuality.

One recent movie, "Brokeback Mountain" made homosexuality a non-issue.

Then you could get into trans-sexuality, it’s normal behavior -- almost. Even 12 year-olds now are having the change without much fanfare from the media.

Who would ever have thought that the term "gay" would be viewed as a term for homosexuals!!

I am not read up enough to know who is directing this assault on us to change our thinking to a Worldview, but I do know we need to be read up on how to have a Christian Biblical Worldview.

The Bible’s view of homosexuality has not changed in the last twenty years. If the Bible has expressed that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior, in Genesis, then its viewpoint has not changed today.

It’s true that the Worldview is formed by the society in which we live. But Christ’s view of our society is not formed by what the society says it should be like.

If Scripture views homosexuality as wrong behavior, then it’s still wrong, no matter what our culture is pushing us to believe.

We are to look at God’s Word in order to calibrate our thinking about our culture. Christians need to gain an understanding of what is happening in our culture in America.

I would suggest that many American’s view on sexual behavior has changed over the last twenty years. In the last several years there has been a major shift in our thinking about this matter before us.

In light of the trends of our society, how should we respond?

Drafted by Charles E. Whisnant February 06 2007 Checked by Charity Whisnant 02 06 07