Lily

http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2015/07/12/on-the-wrong-side-of-god-evolution-and-humanity-n2023811/page/full

On the Wrong Side of God, Evolution and Humanity

We’ve been told that people who want to maintain the man-woman definition of marriage are “on the wrong side of history.” Perhaps so. Maybe “history,” which is determined largely by how people behave, will continue to move toward making marriage genderless in the 90 percent of governments that still maintain the natural definition.

But remember, Moses was on the wrong side of the golden calf. And Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was on the wrong side of Dred Scott—the 1857 Supreme Court decision that declared blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights.” Thus, being on the wrong side of some popular moral assertion doesn’t necessarily mean that your position is wrong.

Now that five judges say that same sex marriage is a new “right,” I would like to ask a more foundational question. Where do rights come from? Specifically, where does the right to same sex marriage come from?

If you say that rights come from governments or constitutions, then how can they really be rights? Isn’t a right something you have regardless of what a government says? For example, if same sex marriage is really a right, then you actually possess that right even if you live under a government that doesn’t recognize same sex marriage. You may not be able to exercise it, but you have it nonetheless.

Moreover, if there is no overarching moral standard that transcends human governments, then how could we prosecute Nazi soldiers for violating the rights of others? The Nazis were just following their government.

The truth is rights don’t come from men or governments. Instead, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” as our Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, that was the entire point of the Declaration—the government of King George was usurping the rights of colonists, so we declared our independence.

Doesn’t evolution provide us with a right to same sex marriage? Some make this claim but without thinking it through. If natural selection has a goal of survival, then how could same-sex marriage help with that? Such marriages are an agreement to stay in a sterile and medically unhealthy relationship—the exact antithesis of survival. In fact, if everyone lived faithfully in same sex marriage, the human race would end quite quickly.

Even if macroevolution is true, moral rights don’t result from biological processes. Rights are prescriptive and come from an authoritative person. Biological processes are descriptive and have no authority to tell you what to do. How does a mutating genetic code have the moral authority to tell you how you ought to behave or how you ought to treat others?

The truth is, just like history describes what does happen and not what ought to happen, biology describes what doessurvive, not what ought to survive. Why should humans survive as opposed to anything else? And which humans, we or the Nazis?

Even if one could make the case that evolution somehow makes survival a moral right, we are left with several thorny questions. Isn’t self-sacrifice to save others morally superior to your own survival? Should a person murder if it helps him survive? Should a person rape to propagate his DNA? Should a society exterminate the weak and undesirables to improve the gene pool and help the desirables survive? Hitler used evolutionary theory to justify just that. Homosexuals were many of his victims.

So if rights don’t come from governments or evolution, then where do they come from? To truly be rights, they can only come from an authoritative being whose nature is the very standard of perfect Goodness. That’s what we mean by God.

Without God there is no authoritative moral standard beyond humanity, which means that every action or behavior is merely a matter of human opinion. The murder of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals? It’s just your opinion against Hitler’s opinion. Child crucifixions? It’s just your opinion against that of ISIS. Freedom of speech? That’s just your opinion to that of a dictator. Gay bashing is bad? Again, just your opinion.

The same holds true with any supposed right, including the right to same sex marriage. While you can get five judges to assert it is a right, without God it is just an opinion (thus the Court’s judgment is aptly named).

But couldn’t God approve of same sex marriage?

The major religious books state just the opposite. So does the Natural Law derived from God’s nature. Thomas Jefferson called this “Nature’s Law” from which we get “self-evident truths” and the fact that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Same sex marriage is not one of them. In fact, Jefferson and other politically incorrect Founding Founders called homosexual acts “crimes against nature” because such acts go against the natural design of the body and frustrate the goal of perpetuating humanity. This observation is not based on bigotry but on biology. (It’s ironic that our Founding Fathers were more apt to follow science than today’s secular left who ignore science when they insist that biological gender is changeable and sexual behavior is not. The exact opposite is true!)

Since real rights can only come from God, if you want to insist same-sex marriage is a right then you must assume that God is for same-sex marriage. But then you must also assume the implausible notion that God wants you to harm your own health and that of the human race by contributing to its extinction. How’s that for love? Don’t be fruitful. Don’t multiply. Don’t survive. Same sex marriage is not only on the wrong side of God and evolution; it’s on the wrong side of humanity.

So if not from governments, evolution or God, where does the “right” to same-sex marriage come from? Our imaginations. Perhaps well intended imaginations, but imaginations nonetheless.

fiatlux

There is not a word or suggestion in the Bible against same-sex marriage. All apparent references to homosexual acts are not about loving relationships but cultist practices or illicit acts by slave owners. Every person alive is on a gender spectrum, and God did this!

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

You are absolutely correct if you believe the Gay Liberation Theology which is a mix of Marxism, moral relativism and a touch of Christianity. For those who want a better understanding of what the Bible really says, please look and listen to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haK471jirCU which is a good explanation of the Bible, but is not politically correct.

this youtube is LONG but if you really want to follow the Bible it is worth the listen. you don't have to watch it, just listen, and you will probably want to do so over a few days so you can think about each part as presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIphQu6gpXg

In a nutshell. The bible really does say that homosexual acts are wrong and it is not referring to those done as part of pagan ceremonies. Vine selects only those verses that work with his concepts, and intentionally takes them out of context, ignoring the passages that accompany the ones that he claims say homosexual acts are fine and right in God's eyes.

As far as the "gender spectrum" nonsense, if you refer to the 45 Goals of communist which I have posted a number of times, you will see that this gender spectrums concept is really part of the goal if disrupting Western morality and removing right and wrong from our culture.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Why Won't Gay Theologians Like Matthew Vines Openly Debate Those Who Support Traditional Marriage?

+

By Michael Brown , CP Op-Ed Contributor
October 28, 2014|10:17 am

Michael Brown
Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

Almost 20 years ago, I was speaking with an older Jewish couple who seemed very close to putting their faith in Jesus as Messiah, but they were not 100 percent sure.

I said to them, "Later this week I'm debating an Orthodox rabbi. Why not come to the debate to hear both sides of the issue, and then you can make an informed decision?"

Thankfully, they came to the event, they listened with open hearts and minds, and by God's grace, they came to faith.

More recently, I was invited to speak on a college campus about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, representing the Israeli side.

I requested instead that a debate be scheduled with a qualified Muslim or Palestinian representative so that the audience could hear both sides. When no one came forward, I requested that after the lecture, there would be open microphone Q &A so the audience could challenge what I presented.

Why do I do this? It's because the truth has nothing to fear, and I am quite ready for my beliefs and viewpoints to be challenged.

If you believe you are on the side of truth, you need not be insecure.

Then why are "gay Christian" activists and theologians so unwilling to debate the issues publicly? Why do they consistently refuse public dialogue, especially when those who want to dialogue with them are committed to doing so with civility and grace?

Bear in mind that they are writing books, preaching messages, using social media, and holding conferences, all with the goal of actively challenging the views of conservative followers of Jesus, seeking to overturn the Word and 2,000 years of consistent Church tradition. Yet at the same time, when openly invited to debate their controversial new viewpoints, they grow silent. Why?

For many months now, my friend and colleague Dr. James White has invited Matthew Vines to debate him, since Matthew had become the poster boy for gay Christianity despite his lack of theological training. But Matthew's serious research and winsome personality caused his talks to go viral, and since he has targeted conservative churches for his activism, it seemed only right for Dr. White to propose a formal, moderated debate with him.

In fact, Dr. White offered to pay his own way and attend a forthcoming "gay Christian" equipping conference in which he would debate Matthew or a qualified professor for the learning benefit of their attendees, but even that invitation was refused.

Back in June, I was able to do a 45-minute radio debate with Matthew on national Christian radio (with webcast as well), but that was only because Matthew didn't realize he would be debating me when he accepted the invitation. (You can watch the debate here, in which not one single verse supporting homosexual practice was offered by Matthew; for a synopsis of my viewpoints, which also express my heart, go here. On an interpersonal level, Matthew never responded to a single communication I sent him over the months.)

Dr. White and I have suggested to Matthew that he and New Testament scholar James Brownson debate Dr. White and me, since Matthew relies heavily on Prof. Brownson in his book. (Prof. Brownson is a respected scholar and also heterosexual.)

Finally, after months of non-communication, Matthew recently interacted with Dr. White, explaining why he refused to debate him and why he had no intention of engaging me. He wrote:

"I am happy to do dialogues, debates, etc., with anyone when I feel that the event is likely to be constructive, respectful, and relationship-building. I did a 'debate' with Michael Brown this summer that was largely a waste of time, because Brown is not interested in listening to and learning from LGBT people, only pontificating about them."

Come again, Matthew?

I've spent much of the last 10 years listening to LGBT people, amassing a large library of books simply to hear their perspective, taking every personal opportunity I have to sit with those who identify as LGBT – especially professing "gay Christians" – and specifically asking them to tell me their stories, yet I have no desire to listen?

Yet according to Matthew, unless I'm willing to listen and learn from LGBT people, which must mean come to agree with them, he's not willing to debate. And we're supposed to take this seriously?

Matthew and his team are on the offensive, thinking somehow that they will be able to change the positions of committed followers of Jesus (trust me on this; it's not going to happen on any substantive level), yet they won't debate unless someone basically says, "You're making great points and I'm learning a lot from you."
Who ever heard of prerequisites like this for debate?

I read Matthew's book carefully, including every endnote, praying for greater sensitivity of heart as I read, just as I have often prayed with tears of love when interceding for the wellbeing of those who identify as LGBT, but that's not enough. You're simply not allowed to reject their arguments as baseless. If you do, there will be no debate.

Matthew continued, explaining, "I see James White in the same vein as Michael Brown. He has shown no desire whatever to learn from or listen to LGBT people. He simply wants to preach condemnation to people he hasn't even bothered to get to know. There are far, far better interlocutors, and far more respectful conversations I am happy to have. That isn't one of them."

This too is remarkable. Dr. White has debated or dialogued with atheists, agnostics, Mormon apologists, and Muslim leaders, including debates with Muslim apologists right in their mosques.

You don't get into a mosque to debate without being respectful and gracious, yet that's not good enough for Matthew or, apparently, Prof. Brownson as well.

Ironically, on numerous occasions, I have told local "gay Christians" that I'd love to sit down with them and hear their stories, also telling them I'd be glad to have a meal together just to get to know them better. In the vast majority of cases (including all instances where I've offered to do this with a group of people), my invitation has been declined or ignored, yet I'm the one unwilling to build relationships.

Prof. Robert Gagnon, the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality, would be delighted to debate Prof. Brownson or any qualified gay theologian, yet he too is studiously avoided, despite his sterling academic background and his gentle demeanor. Why?

Dr. White ended his dialogue with Matthew by stating, "I stand ready to work with Matthew Vines to arrange a meaningful, constructive, respectful debate—but one that does not begin with my capitulation as the prior condition of the debate taking place!"

Precisely so, leading again to the question: Why are gay theologians and their allies so unwilling to debate the relevant issues, especially when they are so aggressive in arguing against our position? Why have Dr. White and I debated top scholars and religious leaders (from Jewish to Muslim, and from atheist to Catholic, along with even debating each other), yet these gay activists are so reluctant to debate?

Why not put the issues on the table in full-length, moderated, civil debate?

Why not model in public how to have serious differences without personal acrimony?

What do these activists and theologians have to hide?

This is not a macho challenge to engage in verbal fisticuffs. It is an open invitation to examine critically important issues in a way that the entire Body can observe.

Why not do it?

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book (September, 2015) is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter at drmichaellbrown.

I came across this video discussion of Brown nd vines that is worth listening to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI

Brown refutes the claims made by Vines and examines the scripture and how it was reinterpreted to become the basis for Gay Affirming theology. You may want to have your bible open as you listen so you can relate to the passages. that helped me understand it a great deal better.
:

ColdDrink

Here, carefully read this and get back to me. Carefully means without presumption or pre-judgment.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing/?ref_widget=gr_popular&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=progressive%20christian

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I have read the article three times. It is a great example of Gay liberation theology well presented. Look to my earlier post on this thread for the explanation of the scripture and how it has been reinterpreted to suite the "gay agenda" Take your time to listen to the rest of the story.
As far as the science "Proving that your sexual preferences are coded in your genes look to the explanations below.

Science vs. the "Gay Gene" - The True.Origin Archive
www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.php
Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D. ... the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule.
You've visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 5/9/15
Design of the Human Body - Apologetics Press
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?topic=249
Brad Harrub, Ph.D. 1/1/2002. 15 Answers to ... 8/4/2010. Another Case of Man Mimicking God's Design, Dave Miller, Ph.D. 2/26/2007 ... Cracking the Code—The Human Genome Project in Perspective [Part I], Bert Thompson, Ph.D. 8/1/2000.
[PDF]a scientific examination of homosexuality and the “gay gene”
www.apologeticspress.com/pub_rar/24_8/0408.pdf
by B Harrub - ‎2004 - ‎Cited by 15 - ‎Related articles
Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D. ... Genome Project—two years ahead of sched- ... the Human Genome Project was the iden-.
[PPT]Download File - FWC Apologetic Ministries
www.fwcapologetics.org/.../2/2/.../session_4_-_homosexuality_pt.4.pptx
Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D. ... the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule

the article I have about the research and getting past the "research" and examining the flaws is 151 pages long but is covered in the above sources.

Hope you will take the time to look at some of it at least. No, I don't expect you to read 151 pages of research and explanations, just look at the summations is enough.
The reason I didn't get back to you right away is because I had to sort through the sources for you.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

Well, I guess you would consider it "Idolatry using genitals"
This has been posted to you before. You really need to stop pretending to know what the scriptures teach, until you can correctly represent what they say.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

In my discussion with fiatlux above I suggested she listen to two videos explaining and refuting these claims which are part of the Gay Liberation Theology movement. If you haven't listened to them, you would probably enjoy doing so.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Greg mentioned the article “50 'Hand-Picked' Christians Trained To Convince Churches To Re-Interpret Scripture's Gay Boundaries” on a recent podcast. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Fifty hand-picked Christians were part of a seminal conference last week planned by Matthew Vines, a 23-year-old Christian who believes Scripture allows for monogamous homosexual activity, in an effort to spread the idea in the American church over the next decade.

Vines says he has had success in convincing lay members of churches over the last year that monogamous homosexual activity is allowed by Scripture, but is encountering resistance from Scriptural scholars. He is likely to encounter much more, say theologians....

Vines, a gay Christian, delivered a speech in March 2012 in which he argued that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The hour-long video of that speech has been viewed over 600,000 times on YouTube and has been the subject of debate among pastors and theologians.

He told [The Christian Post] that the writers of Scripture understood same-sex behavior as "an impulse toward excess," much like gluttony or drunkenness. But the issue must be approached differently, he says, when discussing Christian gays who are living out "an expression of covenantal love in a faithful, monogamous relationship."

Many Christians think they cannot believe in the full authority and inspiration of the Bible and at the same time support same-sex relationships, says Vines, though he hopes to convince them that isn't the case.

Vines’s video has been convincing laypeople, even if he is “encountering resistance from Scriptural scholars,” because a rebuttal requires very specific knowledge about the texts involved, and the truth is, most of us haven’t looked into this issue closely enough to be ready with an answer.

James White’s Response

This is why I wanted to post a link to James White’s response to Matthew Vines. Please take the time to listen. It’s roughly five hours long, but if you listen to just 15-30 minutes a day, you’ll be finished in no time.

This issue and these arguments aren’t going to go away. I know this probably isn’t your favorite topic to spend time on, but we can’t ignore this. We need to be as prepared as Vines’s trainees if we’re to help the people in our churches who are struggling to understand this issue—including the people we love who have same-sex attractions. This is a topic worthy of our serious study because real people are making real decisions, and the question of which path will fulfill our purpose of “proclaiming the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light” and which path will destroy us is a grave one.

Christ Is Better Than Other Pleasures

This isn’t about hate. If we are truly created by God, and if it’s true that our existence has a purpose, and our bodies have a purpose, and our sexuality has a purpose, then to twist any of those things is to slowly destroy ourselves. There’s a reason why Moses chose “rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt”: he knew deprivation of some pleasures with God is a better life than one that fulfills immediate desires without Him. This is what we need to help our Christian brothers and sisters understand.

It might help for you to also hear this from someone who struggles with same-sex attractions and has chosen Christ over his desire for physical intimacy (a choice which, in itself, is an incredible testimony to the value of Christ), which is why I often recommend Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality.

She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

This is where my faith makes it very simple. Homosexual behavior is wrong in the eyes of my God. Therefore, to engage in this activity is not an option for me. I do not make choices for others for my faith teaches one must choose to come to God. I do not associate with homosexual's because I probably would be trying to change them. This is not something I have the right to do.

To me the behavior is wrong. Just as I can choose to obey the teachings of my God, others can choose not to.

ColdDrink

If as a good Christian following the word of God faithfully, why are you and the Church failing to properly follow Lev20:16 and put these people to death, as God commands? If the Ten Commandments are still be followed, why are disrespectful children not stoned, as God commands? The instructions are crystal clear in both cases. And if, as you claim, you are faithful to God's word, all the commandments, not just Ten, are to be obeyed, for there is no separating out, as man has recently done, the ceremonial, moral, and judicial law: this is a worldly artifice for study and not a true division of the law. All must be followed, if you are a law-keeper. How are you treating your slaves lately? Did you get your monetary recompense for the man who caused your daughter's miscarriage? Why is the killing of a fetus just treated as a monetary fine and not a capital offense?

To be true to God's word, judging the sin is not enough, you must have the full conviction to carry out what the breaking of his commandments demand: death. Go forth and kill these people, not yielding to political correctness or cultural norms, and then we can talk.

fiatlux

She Wolf,why and how has this sin, popular with about10% of the population, getting more coverage than adultery among heterosexuals, estimated to be about 50% or more of the population? Avarice and the lust for power have far, far more devastating effects on society...yet Christians are obsessed with homosexuality: why is that? Deny baking a cake is a Christian stand for what? Would a stand against Wall Street not yield a greater lessening of suffering and harm?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You still don't get it, do you? Christians are not "obsessed with homosexuality", but it is no mystery why we are concerned about the gay activist assault on our faith. And, these activists have been joined by many who are not homosexuals. Now they have the blessings of a nefarious and unconstitutional government mandate.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

The primary reasons that most of us are "obsessed " with homosexuality are quite simple. the 2 to 3% of the population that are homosexual or bisexual are pushing their behavior on the rest of us. they are demanding that we validate the behavior, declare it equally moral and celebrate it as as great a behavior as heterosexuality.It is not 10% as is claimed by the activists. Even Kinsey said it was only about 2 % but the activists, knowing this, lied intentionally to make it appear more normal with the 10% figure. When the first activists wrote "After the Ball" they instructed the other activists to use the invented figure for the purpose of promoting homosexual and bisexual behavior. There is still no evidence that this maladaptive behavior is primarily genetically influenced. so far they have found no behavior that is uncontrollably influenced by genetics, even alcoholism or drug addiction. The "goals of communism include promoting homosexuality promiscuity and rampant sex within the younger people as a way to destroy the moral basis for the Western Christian culture so that the anti-religious state as god dictatorships of collectivism would be easier to push. they have done so to a large extent. In order to push that belief, that the state is all knowing and all wish and that men know all there is to know about moral behavior and values, and God is a figment of the imagination but communism is the utopia that will do all that needs to be done to make people happy. this concept has never worked, and never will.
Frankly, outside of the spread of disease to the straight population through bisexuals and prostitutes, who are often homosexual, I really don't care if homosexuals have thousands of sexual partners during their lifetime, ore only a hundred. That fact that the LGBT activists fought tooth and nail against the closing of the bath houses when AIDS first became an issue, and that it is not uncommon for homosexual men who are HIV positive to have sex with many men without using any form of "protection" or even
telling their partners tell you something about the priorities of the activists, not necessarily people who are homosexual, but not activists. These are the concerns of the average heterosexual but apparently are of no concern to you.

She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

I can't comment on the Christian stand on this subject for the simple reason; I am not a Christian and have little knowledge of their beliefs.

You are assuming my faith does not address the problem of greed and power. You are wrong. It does with the same intensity it addresses all other missteps we human being make.

As I am not perfect, I will not say to my Christian friends they should not follow their heart in this and all other situations. I may not agree with all the teachings of their God but I will defend their right to practice their faith as they see fit.