Christian News Wire:
Chief Judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker Overturns Proposition 8
Contact: Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute, 916-212-5607
MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Proposition 8, the 2008 California Constitutional amendment defining and recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, suffered a severe blow. Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote.
After California's Supreme Court overturned proposition 22, the statute approved by voters defining marriage, the voters took to the polls in reaction to the court's judicial activism.
"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."
The case will head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court popularly known for its left-of-center rulings.
Homosexuality isn't just a behavioral problem. It isn't just a "rights" problem. It isn't just a legal problem. It isn't just an emotional problem. It is a spiritual problem.
Even though the following essay was written years ago, Pastor DL Foster's Gay Christian Movement Watch: Gay Marriage - the Days of Noah Return post is one of the best I've ever read on the topic.
As you read the post at GCMWatch, you will notice a link between the "Days of Noah" and the "Days of Lot." This was an awesome discovery! Jesus himself likened the "signs of the times" of his return as being "as in the days of Lot" and "as in the days of Noah."
Excerpt:
Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.
Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.
Folger’s article also contains astonishing commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on what the Talmud reveals about homosexuality, state sanctioned homosexual weddings and the coming judgment of God.25But first must He [Christ] suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30“Even thus shall it be in the Day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Notice that Jesus compared Noah’s day to Sodom and Gomorrah and then linked it to the time of his return.
Because the inhabitants of the earth had become so evil, God anointed Noah to preach righteousness and repentance right up until the time the door of the ark closed shut. He preached the same message for over 100 years. This was the mercy of God in action, a window of opportunity to repent. Some listened at first, but then overcome by the sin around them, eventually ignored Noah. Noah was openly vilified, mocked and called a liar. Why? Because the people saw no rain and they did not want to believe their activities were wrong.
Read the entire essay HERE.
In June of 2008, I linked to Pastor Foster's post and wrote an essay here at Talk Wisdom:
The Days of Noah Are Here.
Hat Tips:
Christian News Wire
Gay Christian Movement Watch
*******
Cross posted at Talk Wisdom
Posts
30 comments:
What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than that?
Plenty of things.
I keep hearing this sentiment expressed and I keep asking this question to people and I keep getting no responses. May I ask you and might you respond?
This IS HOW our system works. If a state passes a law or even an amendment that is contrary to the Constitution, and if that law is challenged and a judge agrees that the law is UN-Constitutional, then that judge has an obligation to overturn that law, ACCORDING TO OUR LAWS. It's called "Judicial review" and it's how our system works.
You do understand this, right?
For example, IF California passed a law - OR even if they amended their constitution - making it legal to hunt nuns, then THAT LAW WOULD BE CHALLENGED and, once challenged, a judge would rightly determine that this new law or amendment is contrary to human rights and our constitution and they would then overturn that law.
You are familiar with this idea, right? This seems right and good to you, in concept, right?
If not, check out judicial review here or here.
Thanks!
Man made laws are created and destroyed all the time. The difference here is what is right and what is wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, this blog holds and adheres to God's Word on the matter. And the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin. Making a sin into an unholy union of fraudulent "marriage" isn't a right. It is a perversion of the true meaning of the word marriage.
George W. Bush once said, "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." I agree with him.
There are also many homosexuals who do not want marriage to be re-defined. But we don't hear from them because their views are not "politically correct" according to the rabid far-left progressives who think they can re-define marriage - which was God's idea in the first place - into a perversion.
Recently, Rosie O'Donnell even admitted her (now failed) brief faux marriage to her former girlfriend Kelly was in reality, a political statement.
Those who would impose their own political will against a steadfast definition are twisting what God has created for His purposes - the union of one man and one woman in the holy institution of matrimony.
Dan - if the homosexuals got their way on Prop. 8 - would they have agreed if a conservative, heterosexual judge overturned their majority vote? Of course not! They would be as angry today as they were when Prop. 8 passed in 2008.
This is a political issue to those who fight in the homosexual agenda. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with "the right to marry." They just want to change the thousands of years of tradition that is defined as one man and one woman equals marriage.
Marriage is defined not by any state or government - but God Himself. Whether you want to admit it or not - that is your problem.
Someone on another blog posted more of President Bush's statement:
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.
Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
And here’s how he ended:
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.’
I'm sorry, I asked some specific questions and I didn't see the answers: You DO understand that this is how our system works, right?
Are you suggesting we undo our Constitution to make way for your vision of a religious-run gov't or what are you suggesting?
I'm sorry. I thought I was clear in my statement. The Constitution does not hold to a right for homosexuals to marry - similarly to the fact that it does not hold to the right to murder unborn children. Flawed men and women in black robes were responsible for that despicable decision back in 1973 - but it doesn't negate a higher law - that of God's Ten Commandments - thou shalt not murder. Homosexual behavior is a form of adultery. Therefore, it would also break one of the Ten Commandments as well as the sexual laws written in Leviticus. Man may desire to change laws, but God's laws and His Word never changes.
This case will inevitably reach the Supreme Court one day. Then it will be decided by 9 justices - not just one biased homosexual judge with leanings towards the homosexual agenda. I pray that the Supreme Court will uphold what God has created for the term and union described as marriage.
Even if the verdict comes down 5-4 in favor of re-defining marriage from the traditional definition of one man and one woman, it will NEVER make it right in God's eyes -according to His Word - the Bible.
All who make tragic laws like Roe v. Wade or a flawed law like re-defining marriage will one day have to answer to God for their evil actions and decisions.
I fully understand that YOUR OPINION on the matter is that gay marriage is not a good thing, but my question was: you DO understand, don't you, that this is how our system works?
You made the claim that "What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California..." and I was trying to get a sense if you understood that it's NOT unconstitutional for this judge to make this decision? That this is HOW our constitution works?
You DO understand that you are not the one who gets to decide if something is constitutional or not, that we have a process for determining the constitutionality of a law and we are rightly going through that process right now?
That's all I'm asking, if you understand that you are mistaken in suggesting that this is contrary to our way of gov't? I fully understand that you disagree with the decision, but you disagreeing with the decision does not make it unconstitutional.
You DO understand that, don't you?
All who make tragic laws like Roe v. Wade or a flawed law like re-defining marriage will one day have to answer to God for their evil actions and decisions.
You may or may not find it surprising to know that I agree that we all will be held accountable for our decisions. If I were mistaken about gay marriage being a good and holy thing, then I will be held accountable for that decision. IF YOU are mistaken, and your approach has been caused folk to be turned away from God, you, too, will be held accountable.
We're all accountable for our decisions.
But, there's also the matter of grace. I believe that gay marriage is a good thing and it would be sad if I were wrong, but God does know that I (and you) am/are not perfect. Thank God for grace to cover us when we make mistakes unaware.
Right?
Dan wrote:
"But, there's also the matter of grace. I believe that gay marriage is a good thing and it would be sad if I were wrong, but God does know that I (and you) am/are not perfect. Thank God for grace to cover us when we make mistakes unaware.
Right?"
Wrong.
Grace is God giving us what we don't deserve. And to purposefully trample upon God's grace is unconscionable.
Mercy is God withholding what we do deserve. That is why all of us sinners are afforded the mercy of God to come to repentance through Jesus Christ's shed blood at the cross for forgiveness of sins. I could quote the Bible verses but I'm sure you aren't interested.
If you ever read and studied the Bible, then you would know that every single time homosexuality is mentioned it is condemned by God's Holy and Righteous judgment.
Knowing that homosexual behavior is wrong and condemned by God would mean that homosexual "marriage" would not be considered holy or righteous. Not in the past, not now and not ever. God's laws do not change. Only the flawed laws of secular-minded men and their finite opinions change.
Grace is God giving us what we don't deserve. And to purposefully trample upon God's grace is unconscionable.
I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't understand my point. I'm not talking about someone PURPOSEFULLY trampling upon God's grace. I'm talking about someone who is living in such a way as to please God - to the best of their understanding - and it turns out they were wrong.
I honestly believe that gay marriage is a good and blessed thing. Thus, I strive to support such a thing.
You honestly believe that gay marriage is a bad thing. Thus, you strive to demote such a thing.
One of us is wrong. Sincerely wrong. (I think it's you, you think it's me).
I'm asking if you don't agree that God's grace covers our errors - whoever is in the wrong - or do we need to be 100% correct on every action we undertake?
If you ever read and studied the Bible, then you would know that every single time homosexuality is mentioned it is condemned by God's Holy and Righteous judgment.
I HAVE and DO read and study the Bible. There's a good chance that I've done so more than you have, as I've been studying it my whole 47 years and seriously for 30 years.
What I know about the Bible and homosexuality is that...
1. It is hardly ever mentioned - maybe five-seven times (only once or twice by that name).
2. That there is no conclusive biblical evidence that God opposes gay marriage or all gay behavior.
It's not a matter of me NOT knowing what the Bible says. I know very well what it says on this topic and I disagree with your conclusions. That happens in the church. Especially on topics that are not central to biblical teaching - and whatever you may think, homosexuality is simply NOT a central theme in the Bible.
And so my question remains: What of those of us who are sincerely mistaken on some action - is there no grace for me, no grace for you in our errors?
I say, clearly yes. What about you?
God's laws do not change.
If you know your bible, you know that this is not true.
It was a law that Thou Shalt Not Eat Shrimp. It is no longer a law.
It was a law that disrespectful children should be stoned. This is no longer a law.
It was a law that you can't wear polyester. This is no longer a law.
I could go on and on. God's laws HAVE changed. What God condemned/condemns HAS changed. Polygamy was a culturally accepted practice back in the day, with David, Solomon, Abraham and others having multiple wives and concubines with no condemnation. God even says that God GAVE David his many wives (2 Samuel).
Times change. Cultures change. God's expectations for different people and different times have changed.
You are aware of this common biblical truth, right?
Dan,
I suggest that you read my new post and watch the following sermon on video:
The Rock Church - Marriage: The Image of God
I will check it out. But please tell me: Why won't you answer my questions?
I've been in several conversations like this where I ask some specific questions and get answers to other questions - ones I didn't ask, about comments I didn't make.
I was asking quite specifically:
1. You DO understand that it is the role of the court in this nation to overturn laws if those laws are unconstitutional?
2. You DO understand that laws DID "pass away" or change in the Bible - that different times had different rules?
3. What of Christians who are genuinely mistaken on an issue - does God condemn us to hell for being mistaken?
Is there some reason you don't wish to answer those questions?
Dan,
I don't know what is going on with my blogs, but I have been having trouble posting my own comments! I have been getting a weird message after hitting the "post comment" button. It has happened at my Talk Wisdom blog, too.
Here is another copy ( I think this is the third attempt to post it) of a post that addresses your questions.
FYI - I have been having trouble with comment posting at both of my blogs. Here is a copy of a post that I retrieved from my email notifications:
Christinewjc has left a new comment on your post "The Spiritual Problem of the Homosexual Agenda":
God's moral laws do not change. The dietary laws and laws for cleanliness (eating, not eating shrimp) are different and had lesser punishment associated with them.
The moral laws of the Ten Commandments do not change. We all deserve death because of sin - and the breaking of those commandments (and the laws, thereof) point us to that fact. The penalty for sin is death. Jesus Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. His shed blood covers us - but only when we repent (which means confessing sin and turning away from it) and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior in our lives are we forgiven. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads us unto all truth and keeps our hearts, minds, spirits and souls accurately interpreting the plumbline of Scripture.
Ignoring the fact that homosexual behavior is a sin cannot be forgiven. Forgiveness requires repentance. If you claim to have studied the Bible for all these years and yet think that God's Word has not condemned this behavior, then you are guilty of heresy and apostasy. What's worse - you are leading people astray and may cause them to miss heaven.
I could sit here all day and claim that my being a liar does not condemn me. But the Bible tells me that it does. Like I stated previously, man's laws are not the same as God's Laws.
P.S. The dietary laws can still help us today. Many illnesses (unfortunately) can happen from eating shellfish. However, those who choose to eat it aren't breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Homosexual behavior breaks the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment.
As far as brushing aside the fact that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as sin goes - any sin can (and will) be forgiven through repentance. Repentance means to confess the sin and turn away from it - not continue to engage in the same behavior after knowing that fact. That is just one example of "trampling on God's grace" to keep one's own conscience from admitting that willful sinning (of any type) is an affront to God.
See Galatians 6.
Posted by Christinewjc to Protect Biblical Marriage at August 9, 2010 6:09 PM
Posted by Christinewjc to Protect Biblical Marriage at August 9, 2010 8:55 PM
I've been having blogger problems, too. Weird computer stuff...
His shed blood covers us - but only when we repent (which means confessing sin and turning away from it) and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior in our lives are we forgiven. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit leads us unto all truth and keeps our hearts, minds, spirits and souls accurately interpreting the plumbline of Scripture.
Do you mind my asking which faith tradition it is you identify with?
I don't know that any orthodox mainline Christian religion makes the claim that, once we are saved, we don't make "mistakes" on interpreting the plumbline of scripture. Is this what your church teaches, or just your own opinion?
Do you see the problem of this line of theology? IF we are saved and yet, IF we commit an action which WE THINK is good and acceptable and it turns out we were wrong, then we're condemned to hell - is this your position?
And that "true Christians" won't make those sorts of mistakes - am I understanding you correctly?
Famed (and orthodox) Christian preacher, Charles Spurgeon believed we could sin in ignorance, and God's grace covered this...
O you who hope to be saved by works, how can you ever enjoy a moment’s peace? ...You may have sinned ignorantly and that will spoil it all!...
...There is another path! Yonder Cross directs you to it, for it is the signpost of the King’s highway!
...God’s way of delivering those who sinned ignorantly was not by denying their sin and passing over it, but by accepting an atonement for it.
I grew up Southern Baptist and I'm pretty sure they don't believe that we must (or can) achieve perfect understanding. The Anabaptist belief in which I currently reside does not believe this. I don't believe many (if any) mainline evangelicals believe this.
It would seem to make one cross over into a "salvation by works" method of salvation, in which we have to be perfect enough to please God.
I don't know about you, but that ain't happening with me!
Dan,
I attend a non-denominational Bible-based Christian church. I gave you a link to one of the sermons about biblical marriage. Did you view it?
Rather than copying and pasting, here is a link to my website called "Angels Helper." It was named by my (then) young daughter who thought that my Christian writings were "helping the angels." Anyway, when I get questions like yours (about my beliefs) I point people to that website.
Angels Helper
It hasn't been updated lately, but the writings there were post 9/11 and pre-my blogging days.
The problem with your particular theology - IMHO - is that God's Word is absolutely clear about the sin of homosexual behavior. There is no doubt or "gray area" concerning this fact.
You misunderstand my position. Plus, I think that you are using the concept of "sinning in ignorance" to excuse an obvious sin - one that is obvious to those who are discerning studiers of the Bible.
The absence of repentance for the sin of homosexual behavior (or any other sin, for that matter) by the gay-affirming churches is a crossless Gospel. Like I stated previously, they are trampling upon God's grace by refusing to admit a certain behavior is sin in the first place. Recall what I said about lying? Being a willful liar (meaning, thinking that lying is not a "real sin" and is not needed to be confessed through the atonement) is just a way to avoid the repentance stage of forgiveness through the cross of Christ. Do you know about the "God forbid" verses written by Paul in Romans?
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
My position doesn't have anything to do with "works." It has to do with genuine repentance vs. making a mockery of Jesus' death on the cross for the forgiveness of sins.
Recall that the woman who was caught in adultery was afforded mercy (God withholding what she deserved) and grace (God giving her what she doesn't deserve). However, Jesus also said:
Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
He didn't say that she should continue in her sinful lifestyle - did he?
Look Dan. I realize that anything I might say or quote from God's Word isn't going to change your mind on the subject. Been there, done that. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Oops - change that from "studiers" to "students."
Ignoring the fact that homosexual behavior is a sin cannot be forgiven.
?? Says who? The Bible doesn't say this, right?
Forgiveness requires repentance. If you claim to have studied the Bible for all these years and yet think that God's Word has not condemned this behavior, then you are guilty of heresy and apostasy.
I think clearly, in the approximately three-four places that the Bible touches on some sort of homosexual activity, that SOME homosexual activity is condemned, just as some heterosexual activity is condemned.
But the problem is that you're making a leap from SOME homosexual behaviors (pagan sex rituals and temple prostitution, for instance, which seems to be what is being talked about in Leviticus and in Romans) to ALL homosexual behaviors, right?
Of course, I understand that you don't agree with me, there. You DO think it is clearly talking about all gay behavior.
My point is that I have studied the Bible as to what it does and doesn't say on the topic, and I have done so with a prayerful heart, seeking God's will (and coming from the starting position that agreed with you, I might add) and come away with a different conclusion than you have reached.
Are you suggesting then that when Christians have genuine disagreements about textual interpretation, that those who disagree with you are heretics? Or that those who disagree with the majority, even, are heretics?
If we drop "heresy" down to that low a level, then we're all heretics. You disagree with me, therefore you're a heretic. The Catholic disagrees with the Protestant, therefore protestants are heretics, and vice versa.
I think it is possible for Christians to disagree with one another and still be agreeable in general. We can have honest differences of opinion and not have to resort to calling the Other a heretic or denouncing their Christianity.
I am a sinner, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the son of God. I believe in Jesus' teachings and strive by God's grace, to walk in His steps, as the Bible teaches we ought.
Where in that is any heresy? Where is the apostasy?
He didn't say that she should continue in her sinful lifestyle - did he?
Perhaps you misunderstand my position. I am opposed to sinning. I am in favor of repenting of sin and turning away from the wrong way and on to the right way.
Our disagreement is not over whether or not we should avoid sin, we are in complete agreement on that point, right?
Our disagreement is over a particular action that is not discussed in the Bible - whether or not gay marriage is sinful or good. You have sought God's will and determined that it is wrong. I have done the same and determined that it is right. We disagree on whether or not it is a sin, right?
May I ask a few quick questions on sin?
Killing innocent children - is that always a sin, each and every time? Obviously so?
If you say yes, then was killing innocent children at Hiroshima a horrifying sin - killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, children and babies all at once and horribly - was that a sin?
How about war - we Christians are to turn the other cheek and we anabaptist types take that teaching fairly literally and refuse to take part in wars, considering them sinful. Is killing our enemies sinful for we who have been told clearly to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good?
My point in asking is that we anabaptist types think the bible is quite clear on some of these points. Beyond the Bible, it is, I'd suggest, abundantly clear from our own God-given conscience and logic that targeting and killing children is a horrifying moral wrong.
And yet, many Christians would disagree, even though we think it is abundantly obvious. So, if we all get to heaven and it turns out the Hiroshima-supporters were WRONG and the anabaptists were right, since it is an "obvious" teaching, will all the war supporters go to hell?
Will God condemn them for missing this obvious sin?
My point would be that, as flawed human beings, our sense of "obvious" wrongs and rights is not 100% faithfully correct. Sometimes, we make mistakes. I think God's grace covers that mistake, even when it's a horrible mistake.
Do you disagree then?
(and no, I have not had a chance to view the sermon yet. I will when I get a chance, thanks!)
One last question. Where you said...
The absence of repentance for the sin of homosexual behavior (or any other sin, for that matter) by the gay-affirming churches is a crossless Gospel. Like I stated previously, they are trampling upon God's grace by refusing to admit a certain behavior is sin in the first place.
IF it turns out that the anabaptists were right about war and Hiroshima, for instance and IF your non-denominational church preaches that these are okay for Christians and that you were mistaken, do you think you and your church is hell-bound for trampling upon God's grace?
Dan,
First, I would like to make a correction. What I should have written was "gay BEHAVIOR affirming" churches.
We are all sinners in need of the Savior, Jesus Christ. Anyone can come to the church just as they are (sinners, all). However, upon the salvation decision, we emerge as new creations in Christ. This is why the "old self" is crucified with Christ so that the new redeemed self can walk with God in reconciliation.
I found an essay written by Rob Gagnon that helps to explain why Jesus would NEVER sanction homosexual "marriage" and regards homosexual behavior as sin.
Here is the link.
Here is part of the essay:
Other arguments for Jesus’ opposition to homosexual practice. In addition to all of these arguments one could add about a dozen other arguments, unrelated to the centurion story, showing why Jesus was not supportive of homosexual practice.[6] Briefly, these include:
1. Jesus’ adoption of a back-to-creation model for sex in which he predicated marital monogamy and indissolubility on the ‘twoness’ of the sexes brought together in a sexual union in Genesis 1-2.
2. Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses even on relatively minor matters such as tithing, to say nothing of a foundational law in sexual ethics; and his view of the Old Testament as inviolable Scripture, which Scripture was absolutely opposed to man-male intercourse.
3. Jesus’ further intensification of the Law’s sex-ethic in matters involving adultery of the heart and divorce (Matt 5:27-32), suggesting a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law’s sex-ethic rather than a loosening and, in his saying about cutting off body parts, warning that people could be thrown into hell precisely for not repenting of violations of God’s sexual standards (5:29-30).
4. The fact that the man who baptized Jesus, John the Baptist, was beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws in the case of the adult-incestuous union between Herod Antipas and the ex-wife of his half-brother Philip, a woman who was also the daughter of another half-brother.
5. Early Judaism’s univocal opposition to all homosexual practice.
6. The early church’s united opposition to all homosexual practice (completing the circle and underscoring the absurdity of positing a pro-homosex Jesus without analogue in his historical context: cut off from his Scripture, from the rest of early Judaism, from the man who baptized him, and from the church that emerged from his teachings).
(con't next post)
7. Jesus’ saying about the defiling effect of desires for various forms of sexual immoralities (Mark 7:21-23), which distinguished matters of relative moral indifference such as food laws from matters of moral significance such as the sexual commands of his Bible and connected Jesus to the general view of what constitutes the worst forms of porneia in early Judaism (same-sex intercourse, incest, bestiality, adultery).
8. Jesus on the Decalogue prohibition of adultery, which in its Decalogue context and its subsequent interpretation in early Judaism as a rubric for the major sex laws of the Old Testament presupposed a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual bonds.
9. Jesus’ saying about Sodom which, understood in the light of Second Temple interpretations of Sodom (Matt 10:14-15 par. Luke 10:10-12), included an indictment of Sodom for attempting to dishonor the integrity of the visitors’ masculinity by treating them as if they were the sexual counterparts to males.
10. Jesus’ saying about not giving what is “holy” to the “dogs” (Matt 7:6), an apparent allusion to Deuteronomic law (Deut 23:17-18) and texts in 1-2 Kings that indict the qedeshim, self-designated “holy ones” identified as “dogs” for their attempt to erase their masculinity by serving as the passive-receptive partners in man-male intercourse.
11. Jesus’ comparison of “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs” (persons who are asexual and/or homosexual), a comparison that presumes that “born eunuchs” are not permitted sexual relationships outside a man-woman bond (Matt 19:10-12).
12. The fact that Jesus developed a sex ethic that had distinctive features not shared by the love commandment (love for everyone does not translate into having sex with everyone), reached out to tax collectors and sexual sinners while simultaneously intensifying God’s ethical demand in these areas, insisted that the adulterous woman stop sinning lest something worse happen to her (i.e., loss of eternal life; cf. John 8:3-11; 5:14), appropriated the context of the “love your neighbor” command in Lev 19:17-18 by insisting on reproof as part of a full-orbed view of love (Luke 17:3-4), and defined discipleship to him as taking up one’s cross, denying oneself, and losing one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matt 10:38-39; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25).
In short, there is no reasonable case for supposing that Jesus was supportive of homosexual unions. To the contrary: There is every reason to believe that he was as opposed as anyone else in early Judaism or earliest Christianity.
Also see this at Rob J. Gagnon's website:
How to make a valid secular case against cultural endorsement of homosexual behavior. Emphasize the following six reasons:
1) The nature argument. Marriage is not just about more intimacy. It is about merging with one's sexual other half or counterpart, a complementary sexual other. Erotic desire for what one is as a sexual being is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception: an attempt at completing oneself sexually through merger with a sexual same. Most people intuit something developmentally deficient about being erotically attracted to the body parts and essential gender that one shares in common with another. See my online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-46 here; and my published entry on "Homosexuality" in New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (Intervarsity Press), 327-32.
2) Negative side effects. Attending homosexual practice is a disproportionately high rate of negative side effects as regards (a) health (sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems, and shortened life expectancy) and (b) relational dynamics (short term relationships, high numbers of sex partners). These problems are, in the first instance, attributable to the non-complementarity of homoerotic unions: the extremes of one's sex are not moderated and gaps are not filled. Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the destruction of all gender norms and societal endorsement of transvestism and transgenderism. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 452-60, 471-85; more recently, my online "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture: Part II: Science" (here for pdf, here for html).
3) Increase of homosexuality. Cultural endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual behavior will likely lead to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the population, affecting young people at higher rates. This means that more people will develop a higher risk for the problems discussed in 2 above. For documentation of this point, see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395-429; and now with updates, "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-32, 120-25 here.
4) The intolerance of the homosexual agenda. Caving into the homosexual agenda will lead to the radical marginalization of those who oppose homosexual practice and, ultimately, the criminalization of opposition to homosexual behavior. Homosexual activism represents the greatest threat to civil and religious liberties for our children. At stake are such things as: mandatory indoctrination of our children in all school systems, public and accredited private, from kindergarten on, through convocations, skits, videos, workshops, and teacher instruction; loss of one’s job if one does not sign a statement saying that one “values sexual orientation differences”; mandatory workplace attendance of “Gay Pride” events and “Coming Out” celebrations; fines and even imprisonment for speaking out against homosexual practice, even in church services; having one’s children taken out of one’s own home for teaching “homophobic” ideas or, if one’s child professes a homoerotic proclivity, for “child abuse”; loss of accreditation of all Christian colleges and even seminaries that cannot prove “non-discrimination” in the hiring practices towards “gays and lesbians” or that permit any faculty to speak or publish in a manner critical of homosexual behavior per se; and refusal of colleges and universities to admit any students who do not sign statements affirming the value of homoerotic relationships. For documentation of these matters, see the book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda. See also my documentation on pages 10-18 of my critique of David Balch.
(con't next post)
5) The destruction of marriage. Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will ultimately weaken marriage for everyone. The introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. Granting gay marriage or its functional equivalent has not helped marriage in these countries; it has made marriage increasingly superfluous. When eroticism is perceived as merely "more intimacy" rather than as a means to a "one-flesh" reintegration with a sexual other into a sexual whole, when the only requisite for sexual unions is commitment and fidelity (and a truncated definition of commitment and fidelity at that), when "lifelong" becomes "long-term" and "long-term" is thought of as a 5-10 year-union, when even the concept of "serial monogamy" is called into question by the high incidence of "open relationships" among male homosexual unions, when sexual unions are once and for all severed in society's perception from a commitment to have and raise children, and when society rejects as bigotry the notion that a mother and father are both needed for the optimal development of children--when all these elements are in place, consistent with the pro-homosex agenda, the general public will cease to value marriage as a special and even sacred institution. "The profanation of marriage" will have gone full circle--both its secularization and debasement. Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage can survive as an institution. See the links to point 2 above.
6) The normalization of all consensual sexual relationships, irrespective of number and degree of blood relatedness. The whole push to normalize homosexual relationships is predicated on the assumption that there are no structural prerequisites to valid sexual relationships; that commitment and fidelity are sufficient criteria, unless society can prove harm to all participants, in all circumstances, and in scientifically measurable ways. Given such premises, there is no logically consistent reason why society should resist various forms of multiple-partner sexual unions, whether traditional polygyny, "threesomes," or some other arrangement. Since the restriction of the number of sex partners at any one time to two persons is predicated on the existence of two distinct and complementary sexes as necessary and sufficient to produce a sexual whole, the elimination of such a premise must result in the eventual elimination of a number requirement.
(con't)
It is not surprising that the recent Supreme Court decision that found a right to same-sex "sodomy" in the Constitution has sparked a lawsuit to validate polygamy; nor it is surprising that the ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of the polygamist, citing the sodomy ruling and insisting that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that polygamy is always harmful (for the record: It isn't). Similarly, if consent, commitment, and fidelity are adequate for establishing a sexual union and, further, if the concept of too much structural sameness becomes irrelevant, then there is no reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult brother-sister unions. One wonders, in the face of such an assault, how long resistance to adult-adolescent unions and, eventually, adult-child unions can be maintained. Note that I am not saying that by approving homosexual unions we may open the door to something worse: polygamy and incest. There are good grounds for arguing that homoerotic unions are worse for society than polygamy and adult consensual incest. Nevertheless, approving homosexual unions will, in the end, have the effect of discounting any concept of inherent structural incongruity as regards sexual unions. See my online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 35-45 here.
Note: Most of the links above are to my online article, "Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?" at http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf
© 2004, 2006 Robert A. J. Gagnon
Sorry, I could have saved you some time. I'm quite familiar with Gagnon. I don't find his biblical exegesis to be sound on this point. I think he's mistaken in his approach to studying the Bible on this point.
Perhaps it would help to point out that I was raised in a traditional Southern Baptist church where I learned to study the Bible deeply and regularly and did so from a traditional point of view for the first 30 years of my life. I've heard the arguments for and against gay marriage and believed as you do for the first 30 years of my life.
It was only extensive Bible study and careful, prayerful contemplation on this point that led me AWAY from the traditional view (which I believe now to be more cultural and man-made than biblical or Godly) and towards a more inclusive view and, even then, it was almost unwillingly.
I was QUITE convinced by my upbringing and cultural bounds that gay marriage was wrong and had NO desire to change my opinion.
Prayer and Bible study did that for me.
So, still I wonder: What if you are mistaken on any given behavior and what you think is good is actually NOT good or vice versa - do you think God will condemn you to hell for an imperfect knowledge?
If you want, I could give you a point-by-point explanation of where I think Gagnon makes logical leaps not derived from the Bible, but from cultural traditions of humanity, but perhaps it would suffice to say that I have considered it all carefully and disagreed with his hunches.
May I ask...
As noted, I am a saved man. I was born again when I was ten years old. Having been raised in church and made familiar with the bible, I came to recognize that I, even as a child, was a sinner in need of salvation. I repented of my sins, asked God for forgiveness and made Jesus Lord of my life, prayerfully seeking by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps.
At the age of 16, I re-dedicated my life (what the Nazarenes call "sanctification," and the Baptists call "re-dedication") - I made a more adult decision that I wanted Jesus to truly be Lord of my life, to go where he led, to walk where he'd want me to walk, to live my life in his care and grace and power.
I redoubled my Bible reading and prayer times. I became a leader in my youth group and spent the ages of 19-29 in a Gospel band, singing and preaching all around the Southeast.
I AM saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, which is what most evangelicals accept as "orthodox."
Do you have any problems with any of that? Do you have some other method of salvation that you think is necessary, or is that the right process, in your opinion?
I will address this one, since it coincides with your topic....
there is no reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult brother-sister unions. One wonders, in the face of such an assault, how long resistance to adult-adolescent unions and, eventually, adult-child unions can be maintained.
We have valid health concerns that make legitimate bans on incestuous relationships. We won't allow adult-child or adult-animal relationships because of the lack of adult decision-making status of children and animals.
Speaking constitutionally, I'm less sure what reasons we would have for bans on polygamy, but as noted, I'm not a legal scholar. They may exist or may not. Of course, not that I would suggest polygamy is a good model for marriage (even though it's a very biblical model). I think two rational adults, though, can and should be able to make that decision, barring familial ties.
But even if polygamy was found to be constitutional, what harm would come to marriage? So, you'd have a few people marrying in groups (again, as they did in the Bible days, as well as in other cultures). This has not undermined marriage in any way that I can see.
Can you (or Gagnon) offer any substantial harm that can be quantified if gay marriage (of which I approve) or even polygamy (of which I do not approve) were legalized?
You are missing the point. Like I wrote previously, we are going to have to "agree to disagree."
As you stated in your final sentence:
"Can you (or Gagnon) offer any substantial harm that can be quantified if gay marriage (of which I approve) or even polygamy (of which I do not approve) were legalized?"
You have your own moral convictions (e.g. you approve of gay "marriage" but disapprove of polygamy) and nothing that either Mr. Gagnon or I could say would change your mind.
Why bother continuing this discussion? There is no point.
God's Word has spoken on this issue. His Word takes precedent over either my opinions or your opinions. If you won't recognize His admonitions against homosexual behavior (the Leviticus verses describe the act explicitly - even before the term "homosexual" was invented) then that is your choice.
"Why bother?"
Because I am interested in your position. I'd like to KNOW your position on the questions I have asked. If, after knowing that, there is no more to say, then fine, but I WOULD like to know the answers to the questions I have asked.
Why? Because that is how communication happens. I (having once held your position) am wondering some specifics about your positions that you've referenced. If you answer the questions, then I will understand you a little better and, perhaps, you will understand yourself a little better. Being able to articulate an answer to question often helps me quantify my position more clearly.
Those are my reasons why to bother. So, why not? What's the harm in providing understanding and clarification?
Heading out to visit a friend tonight. Will chat tomorrow.
Post a Comment