31 January 2012

Homosexual "Christianity?"

Whilst reading this article, I was intrigued by some of the statements of Ms. Chenoweth and decided to do some research into the justification of homosexuality as not being sinful. Ms. Chenoweth said:

"I read my Bible and I pray and all of that--I really do." "But at the same time I don't think being gay is a sin..."

To the above...covenant  of works, anyone? I thought you read your Bible...

And "...he [Jesus] wouldn't be going  around [today] saying "You're going to hell," "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong." "I think he'd be accepting and loving."

These comments prompted the aforementioned research and revealed a strikingly twisted world of homosexual "Christians" and others who attempt to conform the words of sacred Scripture to their own theology. A particularly clarifying look into this type of heresy (that's right, I'm calling it what it is; false teaching is heresy) can be found here. For the sake of brevity, instead of addressing each text individually I'm would like to make a few points.

1. The Bible is not subject to your interpretation. For more on correct interpretation see this post.
2. If only one Scripture verse, in context, forbids or demands anything it is binding upon the Christian conscience. For, "all Scripture is God-breathed (or breathed out by God, Gr. θεόπνευστος)..."
3. An understanding of sin is imperative in understanding the true, Biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of philosophizing, reinterpretation, redefinition, or deconstruction, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin and is the result of the sinful and idolatrous nature of mankind in a post-Genesis 3 world (Romans 1:18ff). It is important to stop here and make something clear: Hatred in any form is clearly anathema to the Biblical teaching of love. There are those in the Church who have failed in this regard and do fail every day (mainly because we are all of us sinners), but loving someone does not mean that the Church or any of its members may endorse, condone, or tolerate sin. To wit, love is not letting a person fall head long off of a cliff when you have the means of calling out to them to stop them (i.e. the gospel). Ad nauseam, letting someone remain in open, unrepentant sin is not loving; it is at best complacency and at worst hatred.

In closing, I return to Ms. Chenoweth's comments, and as I have already addressed sufficiently the issue of homosexuality and the teachings of Scripture, I would like to address her Christology briefly; if Jesus taught about hell one time, it is enough to bind the Christian conscience (see point 2 above). Therefore I will cite one of many texts that clearly relate Jesus' teachings on hell:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22, ESV, emphasis added)"


  1. Considering the entire book of genesis has been proven to be myth and fable it is odd you would cite it as some sort of elemental law. There was no Adam and Eve. There was no world wide flood. Humans never attained the impossible ages that are claimed. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any of the events that are claimed to have occurred. The denial of human nature is the problem. The hypocritical use of selected scriptures is the classic example of the intentionally ignorant. The sciences of geology, cosmology, genetics, and evolutionary biology have and will continue to show the infantile mind will use the insights of goat and sheep herders and mistrust the work of modern scientists.

    There are four irreducible arguments against the belief in a christian god:
    It wholly misrepresents the origins of the cosmos and humanity.
    By this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism.
    It is the result of the the cause of dangerous sexual repression.
    It is ultimately based of wish thinking.

    Question: How do you reconcile the suffering of the innocent with the supposed all loving, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient god. Does jesus really dislike small children in the Sudan more than small children in Kansas or Texas?

    1. First off, thank you for commenting.

      Second, You are suggesting I was basing my entire argument off of Genesis; which I did not.

      Next, science is flawed; no matter how you cut it, science is not and never will be perfect.

      Irreducible reasons evolution is an insufficient explanation for the beginning of the universe: 1)something cannot come from nothing 2)life cannot come from non-life.

      I reconcile the suffering of men by knowing how horrible the presence of sin is in this fallen world, and that one day evil will be judged. Check my post on What is the Gospel and What is the Gospel II for further explanation on the problem of evil.

      Thanks again, spread the word, and I have a feeling I'll be answering a lot of questions like this.

  2. I forgot to mention as well, that the reason I believe that Genesis is true is because of Isaiah 55:14, and last time I checked there weren't any scientists or scholars who were raised from the dead. That is to say, Jesus who was the Son of God believed in a historical Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4), and until someone else rises from the dead (that's historical fact as well, take a look at the extra biblical evidence like Josephus and Tacitus), I will continue to believe it is so. That's not to say that I don't have issues and questions, but I will not rely on the fallible word of man over the infallible Word of God.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, that does take faith, but faith and reason are not diametrically opposed.

  3. Please show evidence for any one being raised form the dead. there are many books that talk about the raising of the dead but that does not make it true.
    1 Kings 17:22
    And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
    2 Kings 4:32-35
    And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times.
    Luke 7:12-15
    Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
    John 11:43
    And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
    Ancient Greek religion

    In ancient Greek religion, a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius, was killed by Zeus only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was snatched from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, Elysian plains or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, seems to have a received a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes, were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality.

    Please show evidence for the god authorship of of any book. the writings of any one are not evidence for a particular event. Faith by it's very nature is without reason.

  4. Respectfully, I won't do your research for you. Look at the manuscript tradition of OT Judaism and the NT Church and the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts that still exist and the veracity of the texts themselves. As to their divine origin, I may cover that post later. Suffice it to say that prophecies that were made 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus came true.

    Pagan mythologies have naught to do with an historical event that occurred in 1st Century Judea. I cited two extra-biblical resources for you to look at yourself on JESUS of NAZARETH'S resurrection (i.e. Tacitus and Josephus who BOTH mention the goings on in Judea in the 1st Century mentioning specifically Jesus of Nazareth), no one else (though I am not denying those events you cited from the OT are true).

    Faith relies on the faculties of the one giving faith (as faith has an object); that is, one responds in faith after being presented a reason for that faith (e.g. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection). How is this devoid of reason? The four gospels are complimentary, eye-witness accounts of the events that occurred from app. 30AD to 33AD; when one responds in belief from being presented those documents, which documents would stand in court, that, I suppose, is "reasonless faith?"

  5. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/lazarus-plant-30000-year0old-flower-resurrected-from-naturally-frozen-seeds/
    There, scientists have done it. They do it every day. Heart attack victims revived every day with the technology of defibrillators and cpr. Women and babies who survived due to improved medical technologies. Cancer survivors. Diabetics who would be dead if not for genetically engineered insulin. The dead are raised every day by scientists. It has become an every day occurrence. It is only to the mind of a bronze age herder would these things seem as miracles.
    They are the work of science. I do not claim to have all the answers as you do. But I will not shy away from difficult questions. Have you read Bart Ehrman, C.S. Lewis, Sam Harris, or Steven Pinker? The origins of the books of the bible are well established and are not divine. They are quite human.

  6. I have not claimed, sir/ma'am, that this is my truth; frankly my thoughts on the matter have no bearing. Refusal to address the issue, once again, of Jesus' resurrection in the 1st Century devoid of science, insulin, CPR, etc., merely turns the claims that the gospels have made aside without adequately or openly looking at the facts. Neither, then, have I claimed to know everything, but I am conveying what has been revealed to all men; in fact I'm quite ignorant of a lot of things, and will be the first to admit it (again, irrelevant to the issue at hand).

    How, sir/ma'am, does modern science being involved in "resurrection" have anything to do with the claims of Jesus' resurrection? Which resurrection was after three days of being dead and buried, and once again, witnessed by the Apostles and 500 others (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). You are comparing apples to engine blocks; 1st Century apples at that (or flowers in the case that you cited above).

    It is good that you have mentioned C.S. Lewis who believed in the Scriptures as I do and in the resurrection. Have you read this author? I suggest "Mere Christianity." Bart Ehrman has been debated by men far more adept than I and disproven by numerous NT scholars.

  7. "And do you think that unto such as you;
    A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
    God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
    Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too."

    Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

  8. Very funny. "your thoughts have no bearing" seems apt and fit. It is you who make fantastic claims with out any evidence! The bible is not evidence! There is no experimental data. No peer review. Many people claim to have witnessed events that did not occur. The court system is excellent example of the fallibility of witness testimony. Revelation is open to all of us and is a poor way of knowing information and facts. What is the evidence for the the resurrection of Jesus. Do you have dna or a youtube video. Don't use a quote from a book for which you do not have any of the original copies and was written by unknown authors. The gospels themselves can not agree on the series of events surrounding the alleged events. If the multiple anonymous authors can not agree, what use is your or my analysis.

  9. I have read CS Lewis and his logic is laughable. Bart Erhamn has a Phd in New Testament studies from Princeton and degrees from Wheaton and Moody Bible Collage. He is the holder of the Chair of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin and has done his own translations of both new and old testament documents. His well researched books about the origins of the New Testament are unchallenged in their thoroughness and factual content. His book on suffering is a tour de force argument for the incompatibility of the belief in a all loving god and human/non human suffering.

  10. Yes, sir/ma'am, I know who Dr. Ehrman is; I would not say that he is unchallenged... www.aomin.org

    The supposed disagreements of the NT have been addressed ad nauseam elsewhere, and I would encourage you continue your reading and study. The NT has been and will continue to be attacked, and yet they still stand.

  11. If you buy it and send it to me I would be interested. Not giving any money to that group. Does Prof. Erhamn get any proceeds?
    This is a good review of the debate.
    The NT only stands as the wheezing death rattle of the willfully ignorant. What makes you think the idea that "torture is love" is a good thing. Torture is never love. If your father tortured you to death (well not really, eh) to propitiate the forgiveness of the sins of my nonexistent ancestors I would make sure he never saw the light of day again. Torture is never love. Suffering is never love. The suffering of innocent children is not love. The Crusades were not love. The Inquisition was not love. John Calvin was not motivated by love. Homophobia is not love it is hate and intolerance. The Catholic Church is not motivated by love. Jesus (allegedly) was motivated by love but invoked the concept of eternal damnation for the majority of humanity and is even quoted as not bringing peace but the sword. Jesus brought jack squat other than ignorance and fear to the world. My studies of the NT are extensive and the more extensive they become the more bullshit I find.

  12. Then it appears we are at an impasse; let me contact aomin to see if I can get a copy for you (I'm not sure how it would work; I can't distribute it if I buy it outright).

    Equating the Crusades and the Inquisition with Christ's sacrifice is a false comparison. You also fail to realize that Jesus went willingly, having known from the creation of the world what would be required, out of love for His sheep and eternal, perfect love for the Father. Furthermore, no Christian supports those acts as right or even close to Biblical orthodoxy.

  13. Are you suggesting John Calvin was not a bible believing christian.
    The whole idea of Jesus knowing that he would have to be sacrificed from the beginning makes the planning process of god look a little silly. The idea that Jesus would have to die to forgive our sins without really dying makes the whole process meretriciousness and tricky. Further more if god is the creator then he created "the satan" and therefore, sin and evil how is he absolved of responsibility? If god wanted a perfect world he should have taken care to invent a different species.

  14. I didn't qualify that final statement; I was referring to the Inquisition and the Crusades; not Christ's Crucifixion.

    Yes, God does ordain all that comes to pass. Free will was given only to two people: Adam and Eve. They had the ability to choose good or evil and they chose evil; in doing so, acting as our head and representative, sin entered the world and all evil with it (Romans 5:12ff). Why God did what He did I don't claim to know, other than that which He has revealed.

    Isaiah 45:1-7
    Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,
    whose right hand I have grasped,
    to subdue nations before him
    and to loose the belts of kings,
    to open doors before him
    that gates may not be closed:
    2 “I will go before you
    and level the exalted places,[a]
    I will break in pieces the doors of bronze
    and cut through the bars of iron,
    3 I will give you the treasures of darkness
    and the hoards in secret places,
    that you may know that it is I, the Lord,
    the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
    4 For the sake of my servant Jacob,
    and Israel my chosen,
    I call you by your name,
    I name you, though you do not know me.
    5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
    besides me there is no God;
    I equip you, though you do not know me,
    6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
    and from the west, that there is none besides me;
    I am the Lord, and there is no other.
    7 I form light and create darkness,
    I make well-being and create calamity,
    I am the Lord, who does all these things.

  15. The simple fact is that you are requiring far more evidence for the NT than you would of any other historical book. Challenging the assertions of Scripture on one hand, and the truth of the text itself on another. I have done nothing but present clearly the text as it is, namely the historical document it claims to be and has been proven to be time and again. If you want to discuss theology as you just did, then you have contradicted your own statements. Furthermore, you ask me for explanation, of which I have none but from the text itself, which you outright reject.

    Where does it say in the Scriptures God wanted a perfect world? Do you now claim, by rejecting the only means we have of knowing more than that God exists, to know the mind of God?

  16. You are as fatuous as you are ethically and morally challenged. Trust your own intellect and instincts. You can move beyond your dark place of ignorance. If all you have is the quoting of an unnamed Babylonian author who was laughably ignorant of the germ theory of disease and his place in the solar system and galaxy, then you need to get out of your moms basement. By the way, something actually does come nothing. Life must arise spontaneously because it has.

  17. It is because it is? That is spectacular; in case you missed what I am referring to: Life must arise spontaneously because it has. That is utter nonsense.


Be polite and respectful; all are welcome!