Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Homeosexual Agenda’ Category

Earlier this month I wrote a post on My thoughts on the news of a church flying Christian flag over American flag in which I argued about how much a non-story it was for the media to pick up on it, among other things.  On Sunday some Conservative alternative source of news mentioned about the City of Reno flying the Gay Rainbow flag in place of the American flag over their city hall.  The city has since taken down the gay flag and put back the American flag and the mayor has issued an apology.

I think this ought to be a bigger news story than the one about the church flying a Christian flag above the American flag.  This is the civil government we are talking about and not some non-government organization.

I thought it was interesting Huffington post has a story on “Pastor Flies Christian Flag Above American Flag To Protest Gay Marriage” but if you do a search on their page for “Reno flag” you won’t find anything.

Now I don’t want to make too much about flags per se but I think all the news about flags definitely reveal the hearts of people and where our society is going.

Think of how Obama had the White House glow at night with the the colors of the Rainbow flag soon after the Supreme Court supported same-sex so called marriages but take days before the White House flag was half-mast for the dead Marines and Sailor killed in Tennessee.

By their flags you will know them.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

 

This is a post that I forgot to share before I posted our .   Be sure to check out that post for more resources concerning the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
the-bible-and-homosexuality-truthcommunitychurch-l

 

Fred Butler alerted me to this resource over at his blog.  Don Green, a long time pastor at John MacArthur’s Church (Grace Community) and leader at Grace to You Broadcast is now pastoring as a senior Pastor at Truth Community Church.  They have recently completed a conference on the topic of the Bible and Homosexuality in which they are calling the church to have a courageous confidence in Christ.

The nice thing is that they have made the audios to this conference available for the world on their website here.

Here’s the sessions linked to the audios:

1. Refuting the Five Myths on Homosexuality

2. Why Homosexuality is Wrong

3. Scripture, Shellfish, and Homosexual Sin

4. Addressing the Heart of Same-Sex Attraction

5. The Future of the Church and Homosexuality

 

I have benefited from Don Green’s preaching in the past.  May this edify God’s people.

Read Full Post »

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

Here’s the round up from our marathon series concerning a Christian response to homosexuality.  We have a few “stragglers” post we might still write and be added on here in the near future.

Writings

Free E-Books

Audios and Videos

Read Full Post »

julie-roys-gay-debate

On Saturday, June 28, 2014 Moody Radio’s “Up For Debate” hosted a debate between Evangelical apologist Dr. Michael Brown and gay apologist Matthew Vines concerning the topic “Can you be Gay and Christian?”  Julie Roys hosted the radio debate.  It was a 42 minutes discussion.

There is a Youtube video format available of that debate which can be seen below.

Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

Matthew vines

This is part 4 of our look at Matthew Vines’ pre-commitment or starting points that prejudice him towards rejecting the Bible’s rejection of same-sex relationship even before he began researching for his book God and the Gay Christian.  Here in this post I want to address a paragraph in the book in which he thinks it would be hard for Christians to embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible’s rejection of homosexuality.

Matthew Vines In His Own Words

On page 28 of the book Vines stated the following:

If you are like me, you grew up in a community that embraced this view of human sexuality without controversy.  But increasingly, even for Christians who affirm the Bible’s full authority, the traditional understanding has become harder to accept.  Especially for young believers, the trouble starts when we put names, faces, and outcomes to what the traditional interpretation means in practice”

In other words, for younger Christians who personally know homosexuals and what they go through, Vines believes that this would make them bent towards rejecting the traditional interpretation of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.  Note here that Vines has said nothing about any consideration for what does the Bible objectively have to say about same-sex relations; just the mere knowledge of a homosexual makes it hard to accept that homosexuality is a sin according to Vines.  But is this without it’s problem?

The Problem with Vines’ view

  • Matthew Vines’ line of reasoning here does not logically follow.  Just because one personally knows a homosexual it does not logically follow that the desire and behavior of homosexuality itself is not sinful.  Vines commits a categorical fallacy since knowing a person with a certain desire and/or behavior is not the same thing as knowing the ethical value of a desire and behavior.
  • The error of Vines’ reasoning is best illustrated when it is applied to other sins.  Vines himself believes that adultery is a sin because he believes that Christians must be in committed monogamous relationships.  Yet is Vines willing to say that his “traditional understanding” about the sinfulness of adultery “has become harder to accept” once he can put names and faces to adulterers?  There are some “nice,” “kind” and “loving” adulterers out there.  Does Vines know of any?  Does knowing adulterers as persons somehow make the act of adultery somehow less heinous?
  • Again, being able to “put names and faces” of individuals associated with certain pet sins doesn’t mean that it must be harder to accept those sins as sins.  Think of all those who work intimately counseling alcoholics, drug addicts and felons as their calling.  Their familiarity with those who practice sinful behavior and struggle with sinful desires doesn’t make them necessarily less inclined to see sins as sins.
  • Make no mistake that Romans 1:26-27 does not speak highly of same-sex relationship: “26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.”  This passage is situated in Romans chapter one that talks about the sinfulness of man and God’s judgement.
  • What are we to make of those who personally know homosexuals and suddenly approve of homosexual desires and acts?  After identifying same-sex relationship as sinful and part of God’s judgment Paul goes on to say in Romans 1:32 that “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”  God does not approve of those who call what is sinful as “good.”
  • This problematic pre-commitment is a symptom of Matthew Vines’ misplaced role of experience over Scripture which we have documented and refuted in part 2.

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 »

Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

This is too good not to post in light of all the discussion about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I wonder if the Left will try to go force Muslim bakers and cake makers to bake Gay Wedding Cakes?  Or worst, do what they did to an Indiana Family Pizza Shop, threaten them.  I don’t condone that at all by the way, just noting the double standard.

Louder With Crowder went and asked some Muslim Bakers if they would make a Gay Wedding Cake.  The answer is what you expected.

See the video below:

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »