Wrote the following in the comment section of this post last night:


 

Speaking of pastors having the free speech right to state Bible verses - which state unequivocally that homosexual behavior is sinful - tomorrow the CA Supreme Court will hand down it's decision on whether or not to overturn Proposition 22 (which was voted on by the people in 2000 to recognize that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in CA) and allow homosexual "marriage."

Knowing how liberal the members of the court are, I would not be a bit surprised if they decide to ignore and trump the votes of 60% of the people in order to push their own ideological agreement with those proponents of same-sex "marriage" on the public in this state.

I pray that Prop. 22 ISN'T overturned, but I fear that this liberal leftist court will not be able to resist the opportunity to do so.

If they do such a thing, it may be "legal" in CA to "marry" a person of the same sex; but it will NEVER BE MORALLY RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD. God's laws DO NOT CHANGE!

May 14, 2008 10:33:00 PM PDT

With the CA Extreme Court's "making new law" decision, CA has trumped the vote of the majority of people in this state who voted by 60% margin back in 2000 that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman in the state of California.

How ironic that this Extreme Court has done exactly what John McCain said in his speech this morning about radical judges "legislating from the bench." This court has overturned the will of the people in California.

This unrighteous decision just proves that the Alliance Defense Fund is correct in reclaiming pastor's rights of free speech in the pulpit. Getting that passed will be of the utmost importance in order to prevent so-called "hate crimes" laws - that are currently being pushed into law by homosexual groups and their supporters - which are designed to criminalize any voices that share the fact that homosexual behavior as sinful, shameful, physically, emotionally and spiritually dangerous. Getting pastors who follow biblical morality (and, of course, preach against and oppose homosexual behavior) silenced, is the final goal of the homosexual agenda. If they can, literally, shut all opposition down, then they (believe) that they have won not only the battle, but the entire war against God's Word and proper moral behavior.

There are two people who recently presented strong arguments against homosexual behavior.

1. Pastor Miles McPherson's sermon on February 10, 2008 is called Marriage, The Image of God. Go to the link, scroll down to that date, and you can either watch the video or listen to the podcast.


2. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. - who recently wrote An Open Letter to a University President regarding the Suspension of a Black Female Administrator Who Challenged a Comparison between Homosexual Practice and Being Black.

Also see Dr. Gagnon's answers to questions that he has received regarding homosexuality.

[Note: I respectfully disagree with Dr. Gagnon's view that "salvation can be lost." Dr. Gagnon admits that Christians can disagree on this issue.]

Here is the letter and response:

 

A Question about Eternal Security and Sexual Immorality
From: Mark
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Robert Gagnon


Dear Dr. Gagnon:

Even as one who has learned a great deal from you through your articles, as a Presbyterian minister I must take exception to one aspect of your teaching regarding whether a lady would go to hell if she is in a lesbian relationship [RG: see email below]. Your answer, as I saw it, stated that it wasn't a given but a possibility seemingly based solely on this one thing. Homosexual activity is a sin (it's ironic that those who view that portion of Leviticus 18 as no longer relevant do see all the other teachings there on sinful relationships there as still in effect - incest and bestiality to name a couple).

However: Heaven is based upon what he did on the cross, and our acceptance of Him as Savior. Fornication, Fathers Not Being Involved in the Lives of Their Children, Lying, Divorce, Not Helping Those in Need if You Can, for example, are also sins, but no one seems to suggest that those who continue to lie from time to time, who left pregnant women to raise kids on their own, or who are who are divorced and remarried are all in danger of hell. Jesus does call them to change their ways as part of following Him and He always will, but to say that the promise of eternal life may now be null and void even if they truly believe (albeit erroneously) that God says homosexual activity based on orientation as okay seems extreme.

Let me be clear. I do not excuse these activities or homosexual activity. Having Jesus as Lord means having him as Lord in all of your life. I know that passage in Galatians 5:19-21. I am angered that we in the PC(USA) seem to told not just to acknowledge homosexual behavior but to celebrate it. All are sins that I confront equally as a child of God. When I hear the suggestion, though, that the Lord puts this one sin in a separate category regarding eternal judgment, raises concerns for me that we've gone from one sandy foundation to another another (Matthew 7). James 2:8-13- "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it." All Christians are called to be different. All Christians also continue to be sinners, too.

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted what you stated there. Is this what you are saying?

Mark

Dr. Gagnon's response:


 

From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:50 PM
To: Mark

Dear Mark,

The question you raise has to do with the larger question of eternal security, classically defined as “once saved, always saved.” I do not subscribe to it because I don’t believe that Jesus or any NT author, including Paul, subscribed to it. There are literally dozens of texts that make this point. The thought here is not that individuals must merit their salvation but rather that the absence of transformation or the presence of serial unrepentant immoral behavior of an extreme sort demonstrates a fatal deficiency in faith, i.e., in not letting Jesus live in one by grace. When Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that sexually immoral persons, including those who engage in incest, adultery, and man-male intercourse (and by extension lesbian intercourse) shall not inherit eternal life he is not making this statement only about unbelievers. Both the context of the Christian incestuous man in ch. 5 and the analogy of a Christian, a person who is really and truly joined to Jesus, having sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 make clear, in my opinion, that he also has in view believers who live immoral lives. It is because the incestuous man’s eternal life is at risk that Paul takes the extreme measure of putting him on church discipline, in the hopes that he might be saved on the Day of the Lord.

Thus also he could say to the Thessalonian believers, in the earliest extant New Testament document:



For you know what commands we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God: your holiness, that you abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) . . . [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God. . . . because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things. . . . For God called us not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8)

And to the Galatian Christians:

The works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality (porneia), sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), licentiousness (aselgeia) . . . , which I am warning you about, just as I warned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. . . . Stop deceiving yourselves; God is not to be mocked, for whatever one sows that one will also reap. For the one who casts seed into one’s flesh will reap a harvest of destruction and decay from the flesh, but the one who casts seed into the Spirit will reap a harvest of eternal life from the Spirit. And let us not grow tired of doing what is right for in due time we will reap, if we do not relax our efforts. (Gal 5:19-21; 6:7-9)

In 2 Corinthians Paul expresses deep concern that

I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)

Mourning is mourning over death, the possible loss of eternal life for believers who live in this manner. Later, in Rom 6:19-22 and 8:12-14, Paul urged Roman believers to reverse the trend of the immoral life described in Rom 1:24-27, otherwise loss of eternal life would ensue:

For just as you presented your members as slaves to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) and to [other types of] lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for the sake of holiness (or: sanctification). For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with respect to [the demands of] righteousness. What fruit did you have at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed, because the end (or: outcome) of those things is death. But now, since you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit for holiness (or: sanctification), and the end (or: outcome) is eternal life.

The message of Ephesians is similar:

[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk, . . . who . . . have given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia). . . . Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind . . . must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. . . . Know this indeed, that every sexually immoral person (pornos) or sexually unclean person (akathartos) . . . has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the children of disobedience. (Eph 4:17-19; 5:3-6)

And there are many other texts. For me not to say what I said would leave out the whole counsel of God. The deception that a number of the above texts refer to is deceiving oneself into thinking that, as a Christian, who could continue in serial unrepentant sin of an egregious sort (like adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, sex with prostitutes) and get away with it. It’s not limited to same-sex intercourse. The divorce/remarriage analogy is not a good one, both because Scripture does not treat it as serious an offense (though serious) and because it tends not to be serial behavior (unlike repeated acts of homosexual practice). I would agree, too, that regular, particular grievous non-sexual forms of behavior could also get one excluded from the kingdom of heaven even if one confesses Jesus as Lord.

I realize that Christians have differing views on this issue. I am convinced by Scripture itself that loss of salvation is real and possible for believers. In that sense I am always reforming in the direction of Scripture, or at least trying to do so here.

I hope this helps,

Rob

I would argue that people who do not genuinely confess and repent of their sins before accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior over their lives my not genuinely be saved in the first place. Therefore, their names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Once genuinely born again, one cannot lose their salvation. However, a nominal or willfully sinning person who has not made a true commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, but has simply given themselves the label of "Christian" may NOT have been genuinely converted. Jesus said, "you must be born again." He also said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Those who have not made the heart commitment (meaning, not just an intellectual thought that Jesus might be the Savior), may not have been born again through Jesus Christ in the first place. Such people are in grave danger when Jesus, who knows each and every individuals heart and soul, goes through what the Scriptures tell us is "the separation of the sheep and the goats."

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:


Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Note Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 25:32-33


 

II. The appearing of all the children of men before him (v. 32); Before him shall be gathered all nations. Note, The judgment of the great day will be a general judgment. All must be summoned before Christ’s tribunal; all of every age of the world, from the beginning to the end of time; all of every place on earth, even from the remotest corners of the world, most obscure, and distant from each other; all nations, all those nations of men that are made of one blood, to dwell on all the face of the earth.

III. The distinction that will then be made between the precious and the vile; He shall separate them one from another, as the tares and wheat are separated at the harvest, the good fish and the bad at the shore, the corn and chaff in the floor. Wicked and godly here dwell together in the same kingdoms, cities, churches, families, and are not certainly distinguishable one from another; such are the infirmities of saints, such the hypocrisies of sinners, and one event to both: but in that day they will be separated, and parted for ever; Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, Mal. 3:18. They cannot separate themselves one from another in this world (1 Co. 5:10), nor can any one else separate them (ch. 13:29); but the Lord knows them that are his, and he can separate them. This separation will be so exact, that the most inconsiderable saints shall not be lost in the crowd of sinners, nor the most plausible sinner hid in the crowd of saints (Ps. 1:5), but every one shall go to his own place. This is compared to a shepherd’s dividing between the sheep and the goats; it is taken from Eze. 34:17, Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle. Note, 1. Jesus Christ is the great Shepherd; he now feeds his flock like a shepherd, and will shortly distinguish between those that are his, and those that are not, as Laban divided his sheep from Jacob’s, and set three days’ journey between them, Gen. 30:35, 36. 2. The godly are like sheep—innocent, mild, patient, useful: the wicked are like goats, a baser kind of animal, unsavoury and unruly. The sheep and goats are here feeding all day in the same pasture, but will be coted at night in different folds. Being thus divided, he will set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left, v. 33. Christ puts honour upon the godly, as we show respect to those we set on our right hand; but the wicked shall rise to everlasting shame, Dan. 12:2. It is not said that he shall put the rich on his right hand, and the poor on his left; the learned and noble on his right hand, and unlearned and despised on his left; but the godly on his right hand, and the wicked on his left. All other divisions and subdivisions will then be abolished; but the great distinction of men into saints and sinners, sanctified and unsanctified, will remain for ever, and men’s eternal state will be determined by it. The wicked took up with left-handed blessings, riches and honour, and so shall their doom be.

HT: Miles McPherson: Marriage, The Image of God

Dr. Robert Gagnon

Blue Letter Bible's Matthew Henry Commentary

*******
Update:

Additional posts on this topic:

Americans For Truth: CWA: California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Excerpt:


 

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.

“On a positive note, the Court’s decision today will likely serve as a wake-up call to both Californians and their fellow Americans across the country. I’m certain this decision will help fuel a California marriage amendment and re-ignite debate over a federal amendment which would protect marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

One dissenting judge's opinion:

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority,4 the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.

The majority (referring to the judges) has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality
and justice.

The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex.

Written by BAXTER, J

HT: Stacy Harp for summary.

In an email that I received from Save California.com we find out the REAL reason why the CA Extreme Court ruled the way that it did.

 

Why did this happen? There were more judges who believe in "legislating from the bench" than judges who believe in upholding the law and constitutional boundaries. Look who appointed the four judges who invented homosexual "marriages" out of thin air:

1. Ron George, nominated to the California Supreme Court in 1991 by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times published a very revealing post-ruling interview with Ron George. George talked about visiting the segregated South as a child and seeing "No Negro" and "No colored" signs. Unfortunately, the Chief Justice's childhood feelings illogically led him to do what no other state supreme court has done -- equate changeable homosexuality with unchangeable race, and throw out the people's vote on marriage in the process. "Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: 'I really don't know.'" Obviously, Californians should NOT accept this tyrannical ruling and must resist it beginning right now.

2.Kathryn Werdegar, nominated by Republican Governor Pete Wilson in 1994.

3. Joyce Kennard, nominated by Republican Governor George Deukmejian in 1989.

4. Carlos Moreno, nominated by Democrat Governor Gray Davis in 2001.

After the ruling, a man identifying himself as Pete Wilson's former press secretary, Bob Hudson, responded to a blog in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

 

Having worked for Pete Wilson when he was a Senator and Governor I can tell you he was not at all a conservative and the folks who did his judicial selections when he was Gov. were way to the left of center and much of his senior staff were gay - not being judgmental there, just pointing out his appointees' votes are no surprise.

This is the consequence of pro-family citizens electing "moderate" Republican governors like Pete Wilson (1991-1998). It's also the result of not holding pro-family Republican governors like George Deukmejian (1983-1991) accountable to consistent pro-family standards.

Elevating Joyce Kennard to the high court was the Duke's worst public mistake. Today, Kennard is the most anti-family judge on the bench. From his official biography: "Asked why he ran for the office of Governor, Deukmejian replied, 'Attorneys General don't appoint judges - Governors do.' During his eight-year term, Deukmejian appointed 1,000 judges, and by the time he left office, he had appointed the majority of California State Supreme Court Justices then serving on the bench.

Despite the disastrous ruling and the strong likelihood of homosexual "marriages" barnstorming through California for every child to see, we must focus on pursuing righteousness and victory. With God's help and each one of us doing our parts, the false marriages scheduled to occur between mid-June and the November election can be blocked.

Campaign for Children and Families
Randy Thomasson, President
P.O. Box 511, Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5650
www.savecalifornia.com
www.saveamerica.net
 

 

CCF President Randy Thomasson: "The California Supreme Court has exchanged the rule of law for the rule of unbridled power to destroy all that is good and sacred."

HT: Save California.com

Dennis Prager certainly spells it out clearly in his article, CA Decision Will Radically Change Society.

Excerpts:


 

This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion -- or to any past wisdom -- for one's values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America's values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn't they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.

Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals -- the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society's values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

 

Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

 

Remember how voting in Iraq was done while Saddam Hussein was in power? The farcical show of people placing their votes into the ballot box was shown on T.V., trying to make people in the U.S., and the world, think that these people "loved" their dictator. Later, the results of the ballot counting revealed that 100% of the people voted for Saddam!

Really?

Of course not! What an absolute sham. It was almost comical if it wasn't so serious. We saw through such deception. The people of Iraq were fearful for their lives if they did any differently. The brutal, tyrannical rule of one man in that country led people to dutifully cast their votes for him.

What happened back then in Iraq, though slightly different, was just as absurd as what happened through the CA Extreme Court here.

Think about this. Three judges voted against changing the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Four judges arbitrarily decided to do so. Three judges for it, and three judges against it, subsequently cancels out each of their votes. Therefore, the vote of one radical liberal leftist judge has, in essence, dictatorially succeeded in overturning the votes of more than 4 million voters in California who voted to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If that's not viewed as homosexual agenda tyranny, I don't know what would be.

HT: TownHall

I have read such opinions before like this one over at GCMWatch, so many times. Frankly, it is often used as just an excuse to try and get around an issue of sinful sexual deviancy that people just don't want to face.

My previous post was about protecting children from porn in libraries. In the comment section at GCMWatch, one commenter acknowledged that porn addiction has had a stronghold upon his life for 25 years. IMHO, the commenter made some good points, but at the same time, was trying to show that tolerance and compassion alone trumps confession and repentance. I would ask, "Do you think that establishing a church that affirms your addiction would be a good thing?"

Where is the accountability? Scripture is filled with the need for Christians to be accountable to the church as a whole and individual Christians, in particular.

Yet, this is exactly what the gay "christian" churches are NOT doing. They teach the "love, grace, mercy and forgiveness" of Christ without acknowledgement of the sacrificial cross of confession, repentance (which means willfully turning away from sin - not celebrating it or trying to whitewash it through man's reprobate ideology) or recognizing the sanctification process that is to occur once born again in Jesus Christ.

Where's the accountability in that?

I'm not saying to "throw people out of the church." What I'm saying is that some church leaders are deliberately keeping people in the bondage of homosexual sin through their reprobate theology. This is the same error as The Doctrine of the Nicolatians.

The idea that "Jesus never said anything against homosexuality" just shows the ignorance of people who don't know Christ and haven't read and studied the Bible. If they had, then they would realize how ridiculous that statement truly is.

Unfortunately, their logic is terribly flawed. Since such people believe (and teach others) that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality - that must mean that it is okay, right?


Mission America (quote below) has provided excellent talking points that specifically address this very issue. However, I would ask readers to also keep in mind that other sexual sins are involved in the warnings within Scripture to "flee sexual immorality."

1Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.


1Cr 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.


1Cr 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.


1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?


1Cr 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

1Ti 6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and [into] many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.


1Ti 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


1Ti 6:11 ¶ But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.


1Ti 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.


2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.


2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.


2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.


2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.


2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.


2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,


2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;


2Ti 2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


 

Consider these facts from Mission America:

He (Jesus) also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?


There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.


Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.


When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11) He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. (Matthew 5:28) And he shamed the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.


Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah*as an example of God’s wrath ( Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11,Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.


Christ was God incarnate (in the flesh) here on earth. He was the long-expected Messiah, which was revealed in Matthew 16:13- 20, Matthew 17:5-9, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 4:16-30, Luke 9: 18-21,John 4:25-26, John 8:57-59 and elsewhere. As one with God, He was present from the beginning (John 1: 1-13; Colossians 1:15-17; Ephesians 3:9 and elsewhere).

So, Jesus was part of the Godhead as the laws were handed down through Moses to Israel and eventually to the whole world. This Old Testament law clearly prohibited homosexuality (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18 and elsewhere). The apostles understood this also, as shown by Paul’s writing in Romans 1:24-27, Peter’s in 2 Peter 2:4-22, and John’s in Revelation 22:15.

So--the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When people say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really haven’t understood Scripture, or Who Christ is. Maybe some of these points can help them toward a clearer understanding.

Two comments at my message board regarding the above quote:

 

"This was an excellent reply based upon the truth of the Bible. Christ is God, the Holy Spirit (God also) inspired the Bible's writing, So when God declared homosexuality an abomination in the Old Testament, it was in fact Christ (God) who was the one declaring that. So, Christ did say a lot about homosexuality...everytime God says it in the Bible, Christ (part of the Godhead) is dittoing it."

 

"Excellent indeed! ... John 1 explains that Christ was GOD in the flesh and was the Creator who made everything, including every word written by man to be included in the Bible."

* Jesus also said that the signs of the end times would be "as in the Days of Noah" and "the "Days of Lot."



 

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all.

Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Why do you think that Jesus made reference to both "the Days of Noah" and "the Days of Lot?" That link to a fellow Christian brother's essay clearly lays it out. We also see why when we look at additional Scripture:



 

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

Job 22:15 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden?


Job 22:16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:


Job 22:17 Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.


Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.


Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Note how warnings went unheeded.

Note how few people followed the Word of God.

Note the sexual immorality that was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, think about today.

What would Jesus have us do in these days?




 

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

The eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong to those whose hearts are fully committed to Him. 2 Chronicles 16:9

HT: GCMWatch

People...THIS IS INSANE!!! [Note: Scroll down at previous link and view the "Crescent Betrayal"!!]

Please, please PLEASE take but a moment of your time today and SIGN THIS PETITION!!

[Note: You can choose to just sign the petition. Donations are NOT required.]

Next, send the following letter and link to the petition to EVERYONE IN YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS BOOK!



 

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Call for Congressional investigation of Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial" Honor Flight 93 Petition

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!

If you have a blog - copy and paste this information. READ MORE ABOUT THIS! OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THIS!!

If you are a member of Digg, go to the Digg article, Digg it, comment, and alert everyone you can to get this extremely important information out there! Please encourage everyone you know, by any means at your disposal, to become aware of this petition so that we get hundreds of thousands of signatures!

The current plans for the Flight 93 Memorial design is utterly disgraceful!! It is devastatingly inappropriate! How could the public not care, or protest, that the design of the memorial would be shaped like an Islamic crescent?

This is insane! We are supposed to honor, memorialize and remember the VICTIMS of terrorism - not the false religion of the terrorists who did this despicable act!

Good for Mr. Burnett, father of one of the victims for speaking out against what would surely be a travesty if the current design is not changed!

HT: Big Dog's Weblog
Crescent of Betrayal

Some people have a mindset that is likened to the depiction of three monkeys of "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" fame.

Sometimes there is a fourth one that is missing, so the first three state (scroll down a bit at the link):





 

"We have a fourth brother, admit no evil, but he left the group for a career in politics!"

The radical left liberals typically tend to "admit no evil," yet, they often do not hesitate to speak evil against those with whom they disagree.

Case in point.

It appears that Mike Rucker disagrees with my post yesterday regarding the Flight 93 Memorial petition. Of course, it is his right to do so. However, when someone utilizes that liberal bastion of "political correctness" (a.k.a. the New York Times) to make one's point, be ready to receive much more accurate counterpoints.

Here's Mike's comment:






 

mike rucker said...

a different perspective here.

an excerpt:

Sandra Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on Flight 93, said she could not fathom why people continued to see Islamic symbolism in the design.

“The land speaks for itself,” she said. “It’s in the shape of an embrace.”

After initial complaints, the original design title, “Crescent of Embrace,” was changed to “Circle of Embrace.”

Trees were also added to the plans to encircle the site and not leave a gap that created a crescent.

s. Felt told board members on Saturday that she strongly disagreed with the sentiment of the design critics.

“Wow. Such hate. I’m shocked,” she said, her voice choked with emotion. “When you insult the place and inflame events, I want you to know you hurt us, too.”

this might say something as well:

Memorial officials say that Mr. Burnett, and his wife, Beverly, are the only family members of victims who have spoken out against the design.

unless someone investigates the memorial's designer, Murdoch, and finds that he's closet al-Qaeda, i think those of us not directly tied to the ones who died should do a little less judging and allow those closest to the catastrophe to lead the way. to think that they, among all people, would approve something that smacks of Islamic influence is naive at best, but more likely just plain cruel and self-serving.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Why is it that liberals don't like to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence?

I've got my own theory on that - but let's go back to the subject at hand.

Notice how the one woman describes Mr. Burnett's viewpoint as "hate," and she claims that she's "shocked." One can't miss the black-tar-bitter icing on her radical liberal cake when she states:



 

“When you insult the place and inflame events, I want you to know you hurt us, too.”

Lady...LOOK IN THE MIRROR...PLEASE!


It appears that Mike agrees with the woman because he states:


 

i think those of us not directly tied to the ones who died should do a little less judging and allow those closest to the catastrophe to lead the way. to think that they, among all people, would approve something that smacks of Islamic influence is naive at best, but more likely just plain cruel and self-serving.
 

So. Mike thinks that Mr. Burnett - whose son perished in the tragedy - should not express his judgment against the design? He wasn't "close enough to the tragedy" like Ms. Felt was? His views are "naive at best?" His views (as well as mine and the thousands who are signing the petition) are "just plain cruel and self-serving?"


Here is my response to Mike:





 

Of course there are differing opinions, Mike. No one is saying otherwise.

However, Mr. Burnett (and the thousands who are against the design and have signed the petition) have the right to be heard and to share their grievances.

The Islamic symbolism may not mean much to many non-religious Americans. After all, many people wear crosses as jewelry - without adhering to the true significance of the cross of Christ.

I ask you. If the memorial was in the shape of a cross, do you think that there might be objections from non-Christians?

People would be furious! Even though many Christians onboard that flight were responsible for preventing the plane from reaching the intended target (either the White House or U.S. Capitol.)

Also, it is a fact that symbolism is VERY important in the Islamic world. That one fact alone should make the designers change it from the current crescent shape.

And Mike, did you go to the links and read about the other objections to what is being planned for the memorial site?

If not, go here and discover that there is much more than just the crescent shape of the memorial.

What do you think of including 44 glass blocks along the memorial - one for each person who died - including the four terrorists?

Excerpt:

 

...a new book from World Ahead Publishing, Crescent of Betrayal, describes the many Islamic and terrorist memorializing elements in the winning Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 Memorial. Most importantly, a person facing directly into the half mile wide central crescent (still present in the superficially altered Bowl of Embrace redesign) is facing almost exactly at Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab and is the central feature around which every mosque is built.

Author Alec Rawls started investigating the crescent site-plans after the winning design was unveiled in September 2005, and spent much of 2006 trying to get the Memorial Project to come to grip with his findings. Every element of the entire crescent design turns out to be a typical mosque feature, realized on the same epic scale as the half-mile wide central crescent. The minaret-like Tower of Voices part of the memorial turns out to be a gigantic Islamic prayer-time sundial. There are 44 memorial glass blocks emplaced along the flight path, exceeding the number of our murdered heroes by the number of their murderers. And on it goes, for over a hundred pages of Mr. Rawls’ 300 page exposé.

This is certainly good news!

ADF announces new initiativeto reclaim pastors’ First Amendment rights

New effort challenges intimidation tacticsof organizations that use IRS to silence pastors

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The Alliance Defense Fund announced a new initiative Friday that will challenge the tactics of groups that use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate churches and pastors into silence on important issues of the day.

“Pastors have a right to speak about biblical values from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The government can’t demand that a church give up its right to tax-exempt status simply because the pastor exercises his First Amendment rights in the pulpit. Groups like Americans United intentionally trigger IRS investigations that will silence churches through fear, intimidation, and disinformation.”

The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28.

Prior to 1954, churches were free to evaluate the positions of political candidates on moral issues without fear of the Internal Revenue Service revoking their tax-exempt status. That year, then-Senator Lyndon Johnson amended the tax code to add the threat of IRS action against churches if their pastors mentioned the positions of specific candidates from the pulpit. Citing that rule, groups like AU have repeatedly threatened to report churches to the IRS if they speak out on such issues.

Many tax-exempt organizations are permitted to evaluate candidates’ positions based on the values important to those groups. Organizations which are tax-exempt but do not have the same speech restrictions the IRS places on churches include civic leagues; labor, agricultural, or horticultural associations; business leagues; chambers of commerce; real estate boards; boards of trade; professional football leagues; clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofit purposes; fraternal beneficiary societies; and cemeteries.

“The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond,” said Stanley. “The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church. IRS rules don’t trump the Constitution, and the First Amendment certainly trumps the Johnson amendment.”

Pastors who want to learn more or who wish to be considered for participation in Pulpit Freedom Sunday Sept. 28 can visit Tell ADF.org Church. [Note: Watch the short video at that link!]

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

telladf.org

I am starting to believe that Barack Obama will, as the saying goes, "do himself in" (politically, that is) during the remaining months before the election. He might still win the Democratic nomination, but I can't see how such an inept, arrogant, totally green on the correct way to handle the War against terrorism candidate, who has had so many dealings with people of corrupt (or very questionable character) could ever win the presidency.

The man has been caught in so many lies, it's just unfathomable to me that people can't see this fact!

The following is just a short list of reasons why he should not be president.

1. His relationship with the anti-white, anti-semite racist - the "Rev." Wright. Sitting in a church pew for 20 years and listening to such racist rantings indicates to any rational person that Obama must have agreed with his "Rev," though now he denies it.

2. His connections with Wright and Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakan (for same reasons as above)...plus add in the militant Islam problem, too.

3. His association with William Ayers.

4. His affiliation with Tony Resko.

5. His wife and her hateful attitude and rants against America.

6. Obama lied about his upbringing and Muslim roots that have become evident in his two books.

7. Obama's claim of being a Christian is questionable, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. What Christian do you know who claims that belief in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation?

8. His "typical white person" smug and arrogant attitude that he would go so far as to verbally throw his own grandma under the bus.

9. His latest put-down of middle Americans.

Here's an article about his latest faux pas.

Obama Draws Fire for Comments on Small Town America

Excerpts:

 

Hillary Clinton and John McCain both ripped into Barack Obama Friday for reportedly saying residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of bitterness over lost jobs.

Obama made the original comments while speaking to a group of wealthy California donors in San Francisco over the weekend. The Huffington Post quotes him specifically singling out towns in Pennsylvania, where he’s trying to woo voters and overcome Clinton’s lead in the polls before the state’s April 22 primary.

 

“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

 

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them,” Clinton said Friday afternoon at a campaign stop in Philadelphia. She said the Pennsylvanians she’s met aren’t bitter, but “resilient” and “positive.”

 

McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called Obama’s statement “remarkable” and “extremely revealing.”

 

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president of the United States who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Schmidt also said it shows Obama views the people he’s trying to relate to with “contempt.”

Obama is so smug that he tried to re-direct what he said and blame it on Washington. But people are not that gullible. He really stepped into it this time!

 

Obama directly addressed the growing furor Friday at a campaign stop in Indiana. Many working-class people have lost jobs to overseas operations, lost their pensions, lost their health care and haven’t gotten any help from Democrats or Republicans, he said.

 

“And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated,” Obama told a crowd of supporters. “You would be too — in fact many of you are, because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. … Nobody is thinking about you.”

He also said that this disillusionment with government’s inaction on economic issues makes people base their votes on other issues, such as guns, gay marriage and religion.

The response set off another round of complaints from the Clinton and McCain campaigns that Obama is out of touch with ordinary people.

People are starting to get a glimpse of the real Barack Obama now. Many do not like what they are hearing and learning about him.

Kirsten Powers (a Democrat) points out the fact that it is only the far left who would pass such comments off without an inkling of bitterness:

 

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

I'm sure that I left some important things out about the real Barack Obama. No worries. Just get a copy of Whistleblower's latest news magazine:

Finally revealed: The secret life of Barack Obama
Is he America's political messiah – or a Manchurian candidate?

 

"This issue of Whistleblower is about what's at the heart of Barack Obama," said David Kupelian, managing editor of WND and Whistleblower. "Obama is a man who reflexively, instinctively, will side with what's wrong and harmful for America, and will oppose what's right and good and wholesome for America. It's uncanny. But this profoundly negative orientation is sugar-coated with a charismatic 'positive' persona and beguiling rhetoric."

I'm waiting for my copy to arrive in the mail!

HT's:

Fox News

WorldNetDaily

Michele Malkin

ZombieTime.com

One News Now

Israel Insider

Human Events

Newsmax

Yid with Lid

Political Radar