Archive for the ‘Sexual Immorality’ Category

Have you heard of the saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder?”

For the Christian a related corollary would be “Pre-Marital Abstinence Makes Married Heart Grow Stronger.”

Christians who are in courtship: I want to encourage you to continue pursuing godliness even as you battle temptation.


Read Full Post »

This is from my daily Greek exercise of sight reading some few months ago, courtesy of Vincent S Artale Jr.

Our text is from the Greek translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:3.  Here is my translation:

“SUPPORT 3 ‹→ τοῦτο →› γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ‹☉ ὁ ☉› ‹☉ ἁγιασμὸς ☉› ‹☉
For this is the will of God your sanctification

ὑμῶν ☉›

ELABORATION ‹☉ ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας”
you abstain from immorality

Here are some observations:


Read Full Post »


Is church discipline unloving?  How many times it has happened in churches all across America where leaders in the church say practicing church discipline as described in the Bible in such places as Matthew 18 is “unloving.”  Then their reasoning continues with the conclusion that “if  church discipline is unloving therefore we should not practice church discipline.”

We as Christians must ask if this type of argument is biblical.

Let me be clear up front that I think people can mess up church discipline in an unloving manner, just like how people can mess any good and right act outwardly with a wrong motive and attitude.

However the issue I want to deal with is whether church discipline in of itself is “unloving.”  I think the contents of the book of 1 Corinthians helps us answer this question biblically.


Read Full Post »

Jaeson Ma with Paris Hilton

Jaeson Ma with Paris Hilton

In the past I have written about a false prophet and so called “pastor” and “missionary” (according to Wikipedia) name Jaeson Ma which have been compiled in a section under my post “Strange Fire: Problems in Asia Series” including one of how he is the epitome of the unbiblical Hipster and ‘Celebrity’ Pastor.  That last link I wrote nearly five years ago and one may wonder if Jaeson Ma’s have gotten better or worse.


Read Full Post »

D G Hart

Over at Christian historian Dr. Hart’s website, “Old Life,” he recently has a post titled “Would You Let Your Wife Be a Physician?” in which he responded to Christian blogger Tim Challies’ article “Sex on the Silver Screen.”  Challies makes a good point about Christians not watching sexual immorality on film but Dr. Hart didn’t like the following argument from Challies, which Hart describes as “the skin test to movies to argue against watching a performance that involves bare breasts:”

What would it take for you to be okay with your wife participating in that scene? Would you send her off to work tomorrow knowing that she would be topless for hours at a time, that she would be rolling around on a bed with another man as a crew looked on, as they adjusted the lighting, as they practiced different angles, as the director instructed her, “No, put your hands there. Move in that way…” She would not be having sex with him, but she would be doing her best to act like it, to make others believe it. She would be taking all she knows of the movements, the motion, the pleasure of sex with you and imitating it with this other man. Wife, what would it take for you to be okay with your husband stripping her and kissing her and carrying her to bed? My guess is that you cannot imagine any scenario in which that would be tolerable, in which that would be moral and right. Now hold onto that conviction for a moment.

I think Challies made a good point.  But Hart didn’t think so:

Why exactly is this a slam dunk?

Consider women who serve as physicians and examine men’s private parts (among others) for a living. Why doesn’t the skin test apply to careers in medicine? Heck, what about nurses who bathe men in hospital beds?

And it’s not just a question of exposed flesh. If we made comfort with-what-the-missus does a standard for engaging with the world, what do we do with a woman who is a defense attorney and represents people she knows to be guilty before the law? Or for those complimentarians out there, what do you do when your wife serves in the military? Leave the OPC?

The point is that we all have different standards for different levels of engaging the world.

Here’s my thoughts on Hart’s curious response:


Read Full Post »



Four days ago I posted my .  I want to revisit one of Cecile Richards’ quote again:

While predictably these videos do not show anything illegal on Planned Parenthood’s part, medical and scientific conversations can be upsetting to hear, and I immediately apologized for the tone that was used, which did not reflect the compassion that people have come to know and expect from Planned Parenthood.

My response to this quote has already been given in the previous post but here I want to make a further observation that according to Planned Parenthood’s own president these videos show Planned Parenthood’s “medical and scientific conversations.”  Cecile Richards herself admits this.

Now what exactly do we find in these medical conversations?


Read Full Post »

Laurel Bowman Cryer oregon cake lesbian

You might have heard in the news the last few days that Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries has fined Aaron and Melissa Klein who are owners of Sweet Cake for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.  The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries awarded $75,000 to Rachel Cryer-Bowman and $60,000 to her partner Laurel Bowman-Cryer as compensation for damages that was done to them.

Since then I have heard so much about the case that’s disputed.  For instance, Gay rights activists have been saying there is no court order infringement against the Christian couple’s free speech.  Defenders of the couples fired back that there is such an order.

I wanted to find out myself as to what exactly is going on.  I found the document of BOLI’s decision here.

The order limiting the Christian couple’s communication can be found on page 43 of the document though I think there is much room for interpretation.  I don’t think the Christian side is necessarily wrong to say that Oregon wants to limited the couple’s freedom of speech given how they used interviews Aaron Klein had with the media such as the Christian Broadcasting Network as evidence of hate speech when they were voicing their concern for their religious freedom and their view that homosexuality is a sin.  I don’t think that the Christian interpretation of BOLI’s decision is too far out there.

Homosexual advocates have made it seem like the lesbian couple were mere victims of Christian right activists and that these lesbian couples were merely filing a complaint for being discriminated.  However I do wonder if it truly is the case that the lesbian couple simply filing a routine complaint.  Some of the Lesbian couple’s complaints seems like it didn’t necessarily follow or it can be also be applied to the Christian bakers against them as well.  For instance, there is much discussion that the Lesbian couple feared being attacked and harassed with the publicity.  We all know how the LGBT crowd use public harassment and attacks against those who hold to traditional view of marriage; the irony.

I think there is much axe to grind and an agenda.  I say there is an agenda because at least with one of the Lesbian the agenda and the gay narrative is important enough that it comes first even before the truth and I think the BOLI’s own finding establishes that.

Throughout the document it abbreviated the initial for all the parties involved.  Thus the lesbian couple Laurel Bowman-Cryer and Rachel Bowman-Cryer was called LBC and RBC respectively with the Christian owner of the bakery being AK and MK.

On page 21 of the document one find the following concerning Laurel Bowman-Cryer’s integrity:

LBC was a very bitter and angry witness who had a strong tendency to exaggerate and over-dramatize events. On cross examination, she argued repeatedly with Respondents’ counsel and had to be counseled by ALJ to answer the questions asked of her instead of editorializing about the denial of service and how it affected her. Her testimony was inconsistent in several respects with more credible evidence.  First she testified that she had a ‘major blowout’ and ‘really bad fight’ with A. Cryer between January 17 and January 21, 2013.  In contrast, A. Cryer testified, when asked if he fought with LBC, ‘I wouldn’t say we fought.’  He also testified that this case did not affect his relationship with LBC.  Second, she testified that her blood pressure spiked in the hospital to 210/165 on February 1, 2013, when she learned that her DOJ complain had hit the media, requiring the immediate attention of a doctor and four nurses.  Her treating doctor’s report notes that she was upset and crying about her situation hitting the news, but there is no mention of a blood pressure spike.  Third, she testified that the media was standing out her and RBC’s apartment on February 1 2013, when she talked to RBC from the hospital.  RBC, who was at the apartment at that time, testified that the media were not outside their apartment at that time.  Fourth, LBC testified that RBC stayed in bed the rest of the day after she returned from the cake tasting at Sweetcakes.  In contrast, A. Cryer testified that he, LBC, and RBC had a 30 minute conversation that evening.  Like RBC, the forum has only credited her testimony about media exposure when she testified about specific incidents.  The forum has only credited LBC’s testimony when it was either (a) undisputed, or (b) disputed but corroborated by other testimony.

It sounds to me that Laurel Bowman-Cryer has a pattern of lying.  Whenever truth is sacrificed for an ideological cause, we must be willing to call such individual out.  Shame on her.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »