Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, Who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! [Isaiah 5:20-23]*
I recently received a sample letter from Manhattan Declaration concerning the president’s so-called “evolution” in declaring his “enlightened” view concerning gay marriage. The letter is requesting ministers everywhere to express their displeasure with the president’s apparent rush into the morass of utter and complete depravity. So I am using this forum to express my support for the Manhattan Declaration and express my displeasure with the con artist/rank amateur/squatter currently infesting the White House.
Keep in mind, Obama is not a deep thinker when it comes to anything. He is simply an agent provocateur—a front for people like George Soros, Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, and Valerie Jarrett, all people who are committed Marxists, who do his thinking for him and pull his strings.
For the moment, let’s not look at gay marriage [and behavior] from a religious standpoint, but purely from a secularist standpoint. How does society benefit by overturning over six millennia of human history? However, I say this being very much aware that homosexuals do not like to argue based on demonstrable scientific facts, however. They, like other liberals/socialists, much prefer invective, ad hominem attack, harassment, and intimidation. In other words, lacking facts, they resort to name-calling, blackmail, and extortion.
If we examine homosexual behavior solely from a secular standpoint of Darwinian biology, it’s a dead-end, with nothing to commend it as a desirable trait for the species. It does not advance the survival of the species. We have the homosexual community to thank for HIV and AIDS. It wouldn’t have been so bad if they’d kept it to themselves—because then natural selection would have done its work and killed the entire gay population off within a few years. And if it weren’t for artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, they would never reproduce. So that in and of itself should indicate homosexual behavior is a violation of natural law and worthy of extermination under a purely Darwinian ethos.
Even if there is a genetic determinant for homosexual behavior—which has never been proven scientifically—such a genetic component would represent a random mutation in Darwinian terms. And there has never been a mutation of human genes which has been proven to be beneficial to the species as a whole. Moreover, since genetic mutations are inherently recessive, within a few generations, and in the absence of selective breeding to guarantee the survival of such genetic material, it would disappear from the gene pool. I have repeatedly challenged those in the homosexual community to present references to peer-reviewed, replicable scientific research which would substantiate their claims [and also prove that having this gene would somehow be biologically beneficial] and never received a single response—nothing in even the pop journals promoting pseudo-science for the politically correct, such as Scientific American or Psychology Today, has offered any type of conclusive research which supports the argument that homosexual behavior has a genetic component or is beneficial to the human race.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept the premises of the homosexual crowd that one’s sexual predilections are genetically determined and that behavior should not be criminalized because of the biology involved. By that logic, it could be argued just as easily that polygamy, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are also genetically determined and therefore those behaviors should not be criminalized either. Moreover, if homosexual marriage should be permitted, why not permit polygamous marriages, marriages between species, or lower the age of consent to six years old and permit marriages between adults and children? Why not allow marriages between siblings or a parent and child? The fact that homosexuals refuse to allow the legitimization of polygamy, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia shows the logical and factual inconsistency and bankruptcy of their claims.
I’m not going to present an argument from psychology because psychology is, for all intents and purposes, a pseudo-science. Whatever data can be mined from neuro-physiology or neuro-chemistry, are issues for the real scientists in the disciplines of chemistry and biology. Apart from ties in those disciplines, psychology is purely philosophical speculation—a secularized theology which makes man the measure of all things and is totally worthless—but I digress and that is a topic for another blog. It should be sufficient to say psychology has nothing of merit to bring to the table, either for or against it—it’s solely a matter of how each side wishes to slant their case studies. Even if one does accept the premise that psychology is a science and not a philosophical slant, the evidence adduced by most psychologists is that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not something which is genetically determined.
From anthropology, however, we see more evidence which supports the view that homosexuality is deviant, not normative, behavior. Apart from the post-modern secularist western European culture, there is no major culture on the planet which currently regards homosexuality as normal or desirable behavior. In primitivist cultures, when homosexual behaviors manifest themselves, those exhibiting such behaviors are outcasts—treated as being the village idiots.
Moreover, no other major culture grants or supports the concept of homosexual marriage. Even within the Western European culture, there is no unanimous concensus that such behavior is even desirable, let alone necessary. Of those developed countries which recognize pervert marriage [South Africa, Canada, Netherlands, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, France, Iceland, England, Wales, Luxembourg, and New Zealand], none of them have contributed anything of substance to the betterment of humanity over the past 80 years. In fact, now those societies are discovering the taste of their own excesses to be so bitter, they are trying to close Pandora’s box. Other countries such as Australia, Switzerland, Scotland, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Germany, and all of the former constituents of the U.S.S.R. and Warsaw pact countries have unanimously forbidden homosexual marriage.
Looking at the aspect of religious anthropology, there is no religious tradition, apart from the pagan idolatries of the Greco-Roman and eastern Mediterranean regions which even tolerated homosexuality, let alone endorsed it. If one looks at the Kama Sutra as an expression of sexuality in the Far East, one finds no mention or even an implied endorsement of homosexuality in the eastern religious traditions. And even though one finds evidence of homosexuality in Greco-Roman culture, those who practiced such were viewed by the majority as being weak-willed and undisciplined. Plato contended such people were unfit for any roles in society except that of slaves.
So of the four major religious traditions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hindo-Buddhism, there is no support for homosexuality in the normative expressions of those traditions. I raise the qualification because within Reform Judaism, and certain formerly Christian sects such as the UCC, the UMC, the Disciples of Christ, and the American Episcopalian churches, there is acceptance and even endorsement of these behaviors. However, those groups represent insignificant minorities which are not representative or even reflective of the larger traditions from which they have apostasized.
Yet Obama claims his views have evolved from his so-called Christian beliefs. His belief system places the highest value on the “Golden Rule.” And this is the best theological argument the pro-deviant crowd can produce—which isn’t saying very much.
While I would concede that there is no direct prohibition against homosexual behavior in the New Testament, and that Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality during His first coming, I must go further to say that there is a wealth of evidence within the New Testament which establishes prohibitions against such behavior by precedent and necessary inference.
Let’s look first at a syllogism:
Conclusion = Therefore Jesus condemned homosexuality.
Another case can be made that while Jesus did not explicitly prohibit homosexual marriage, He did state explicitly state that marriage is to be a union of one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6. The logical antithesis is that if Jesus stated that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, then any marriage which is not between one man and one woman is not recognized as marriage by God. He further cautions in this context that those who seek to rip apart the definition of marriage [“what God has joined together”] place themselves under the judgment of God because they are violating His will.
The argument is made by the pro-deviant crowd that we are no longer under the Law but under grace—that the law has been set aside. This is a heresy known as antinomianism. And it is a rather selective antinomianism at that. If we can say that even though Scripture defined homosexual activity as sin 2,000 years, we do not consider it sinful now–can we not then say other activities defined as sin in the Bible are no longer sin–such as murder, theft or slander? To cherry pick what should remain classified as sin and what should not is not merely antinomianism, it is hubristic antinomianism with a vengeance. In the first place, their basic premise is wrong. Jesus did not set aside the Law, rather He came to fulfill the Law according to Matthew 5:17. In the same context, Jesus also said that heaven and earth [the physical creation] would not pass away until all the Law has been fulfilled.3 Since the planet earth is still revolving around the sun and rotating on its axis, and I can see the stars and galaxies when I look in the heavens at night, I think I’m on pretty solid exegetical ground to say the provisions of the Law have not been eliminated.
““But wait a minute,” I hear the deviants cry, “we are under the New Covenant and there is nothing in the New Testament that condemns homosexuality!” I have to wonder what sort of reading skills those who make such claims possess—or if they have ever read the New Testament thoroughly and inductively.
In the first place, homosexual behavior is condemned in at least three places by direct reference: Romans 1:24-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-11. If the commentators are correct, Revelation 21:8, 27; 22:15 also condemn homosexuality by inference since those passages indicate that those who practice sexual immorality [a broad term used to designate any form of sexual activity outside the boundaries of heterosexual marriage], those who practice abominations [which homosexuality is defined as being in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13], and those considered to be “dogs” [a reference to those engaging in any type of behavior considered sexually immoral, which would include homosexuality] are all prohibited/excluded from any type of eternal blessing in the Kingdom of God.4
The problem with the president’s view is that, like so many secular humanists pretending to be Christians [like those in the UCC, UMC, Disciples of Christ, and Episcopal sects—and the president’s nominal membership is in the UCC, remember?], he believes that the “Golden rule” is the command which supersedes all others and by which all morality should be defined.
However, Jesus did not say this was the greatest commandment. When asked specifically what the greatest commandment was, His response was, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” [Mark 12:30]
The bottom line is this: No one can truly say he or she loves God with all of his/her heart, soul, mind, and strength, if he or she is committed to a lifestyle or activities which God has specifically prohibited. Nor can one say he or she loves God if he or she is endorsing behaviors in others which God has said will result in eternal damnation for the person engaged in those practices. For the president to suggest that redefining marriage to include activities which God has condemned in no uncertain terms is not “evolution.” Rather, the president is shaking his fist in God’s face and telling God, “I am better qualified to determine what is right and what is wrong than You are. I defy You, and dare You to impose judgment on me.” In other words, it is not merely stepping outside of an acceptable boundary—Obama’s actions are a calculated, blasphemous defiance of God—an act of rebellion. While I would not say that Obama is the lawless one predicted in 1 Thessalonians 2, I think I can say, based on 1 John 2:18-19; 4:3, that Obama is certainly possessed of the same spirit as the coming Lawless One.
Does this mean that those engaged in homosexual activity cannot be redeemed from their sin? The answer to that is yes and no. If, by asking the question, one means to infer or imply that humans can be redeemed and then are free to live their lives as they please in opposition to and defiance of what God has decreed to be holy, or, as the Metropolitan Community Church cult proclaims [along with the UCC, the UMC, the Disciples of Christ, and the Episcopal sects], that one can be a Christian while living and practicing homosexuality–the answer according to Scripture is a resounding “NO!” If by redemption one means that one can be made into a new creature and freed from those carnal desires, the answer is YES.
This all hinges upon whether or not one understands concepts such as redemption, grace, repentance, and holiness in the same fashion God has defined them in Scripture, or whether one has redefined those terms to order to be palatable and pleasing to the unredeemed.
Apart from common grace, the kind that results in rain, sunshine, and allowing all humans to breathe and walk upon this planet, there is no favor which God bestows upon those who willfully choose to walk in disobedience to what He has specifically declared to be His will. For God to impart special [saving] grace requires an acknowledgment that one has been living a life which is in defiance of God. For one to make such an acknowledgment requires that his/her heart [will] has been changed, and that person no longer desires to follow his/her own ways, but instead desires to live his/her life as God directs [repentance].
Will there be struggles with old desires, and failures of lapsing into old sinful behaviors? Yes. But the one who has genuinely been made into a new creature will not be content with those old behaviors.
It is therefore manifestly impossible in the economy of God, that one can have been genuinely made into a new creature while at the same time desiring to live a life in defiance of God’s decrees. That is why the teachings of the MCC, the UCC, the UMC, the Disciples of Christ, and the Episcopalian sects are damnable heresies, because they promote homosexual antinomianism–that homosexuals can claim a fire insurance policy for the hereafter, while living lives which show no indication of godliness. In other words, they claim to be citizens of the kingdom of heaven–but refuse to obey the laws of the realm.
*Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are from the Holy Bible, New King James Version. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982, by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
4 The word denotes one who is totally and utterly given over to sexual depravity. John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, electronic edition available as a module for The Word Bible Software, downloadable from www.theword.net. See also: A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament from same library.