Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, March 03, 2008

Supporting Sin Doesn't Make You Less Christian

I have to commend Senator Barak Obama. He's given me the freedom as a Christian to live any way I please. Apparently it doesn't matter what God has said, what the Bible says, or whether I'm living or advocating things in opposition to what God has said: nothing can make me "less Christian."

A CNS News article brings this delightful information:

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." (See video here) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Oh, come on, Senator Obama! If it's going to be essentially the same thing as marriage, let's just go ahead and call it "marriage!"

As for the Sermon on the Mount, I somehow completely missed that part that said homosexual relationships were acceptable to God. I'm going to have to go back and read that; I don't know how I could have been so wrong all these years.

Obama's right about that obscure passage in Romans:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

In fact, Romans is one of the most obscure, inconsequential books to Christian living that there is in the Bible. How it could change the life of men like Martin Luther, I'll never know.

This passage is as obscure as the one in Leviticus 18:22 which says
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

And the one in Leviticus 20:13 which says
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

It's probaby as obscure as that text in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.

Or as obscure as that passage in Genesis 2:24 where some say God laid out his design for human sexuality:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Or where some say Jesus reaffirmed that design in Matthew 19:5
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'

Besides, we can't rely on the Bible to mean what it actually says! We'd be crazy to believe that. Thinking that the Bible means what it says would rob us of all our freedom to do what we want, unhindered.

Obama also gives us new freedom to look at abortion in a whole new way, one where we can murder our unborn children and still feel like we're in good standing with God:
"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

In fact, if someone, in the womb or outside it, gets in the way of my self-fulfillment, I shouldn't have some "bureaucrat in Washington" telling me what to do with my life. If someone has something I want, or they stand in the way of attaining my goals, I should be able to abort their lives without interference from government officials, right?

All that stuff about human life being created in the image of God? Ahhh! We don't really need all that.

Never mind that by the time most women know they're pregnant, the child already has a central nervous system.

So what if the unborn child has unique HUMAN DNA from the moment of conception, making it (a) a human and (b) distinct and separate from it's mother.

So what if we see unborn children in the Bible responding to external stimuli.

So what if we are known to God even before we are formed in the womb.

So what if we hear the Psalmist tell of how God knit us together in the womb.

After all, what is all this obscure, Biblical drivel when we need to be free to pursue our sexual fulfillment?

I'm glad Obama has cleared all this up. Here I have been all these years, wasting my time trying to do what I thought God was telling me to do in His Bible, when I could have been living by my own standards, doing whatever I wanted.

Now I know who our next president should be! Who else could deliver us from the oppression and bondage of religious and moral duty?

Viva la Obama!


11 comments:

TruthSeeker said...

I won't thread onto the abortion issue, simply because I am so passionately against it, it would be very difficult for me to give an honest response. As for gay rights, there is a difference between saying that gay people should have respect, and the same rights as others, and condoning the sin (if you believe it to be). Obama stated that he (personally) is against it, but what does that have to do with being the leader of a country in which all men are created equal. In God's eyes, sin is sin. I confess that I am still caught in the sin of smoking. Under your viewpoint, shouldn't Obama state that he will outlaw cigarettes, since it is sin to desecrate God's temple. Think about all the sins people commit everyday. Or how about "love thy neighbor as thyself". As a Christian, we are free in Christ, but for the world I am glad we live in a country were all men are (supposed) to be created equal. One last point, we (as Christians) are called to hate the sin, but love the sinner. If you need a refresher on this, just look at the people Jesus spent his time with. We need to always guard our hearts against becoming like the Pharisees.

Anonymous said...

“As for gay rights, there is a difference between saying that gay people should have respect, and the same rights as others, and condoning the sin (if you believe it to be).”

“...we (as Christians) are called to hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Truthseeker, you are confused about the issue of “gay rights” as well as what Jesus told sinners. Homosexuals have the same rights that you and I have. They may exercise all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but they are asking for special rights and that is the problem as this Christian sees it. They want special protections in the workplace, in housing, in education, in health care, in the church, in the military, and in the ordained marriage contract. I love my border collie but should the law be changed so that I can marry her? This sounds like a absurd analogy, but let me assure (you if you are too young to remember), only 20 or 30 years ago the idea of homosexuals marrying would have been thought equally absurd. I ask you, truthseeker, what has changed in the interim--God’s Word or man?

Jesus was very consistent with sinners. He calls for them (i.e., us) to repent and “sin no more.” That is not the same as respect and tolerance (or glorification) of sinful behavior.

Yes, I am still a sinner as I suspect you are, too. The difference is that I confess my sin, acknowledge that sin is an act of rebellion against God, and I sincerely try to avoid sin in the future. (We all fail and that is why we need the saving grace of Jesus’ shed blood.)


If you truly are a "truthseeker" your search is over once you accept Jesus as Lord and savior. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."-John 8:32

TruthSeeker said...

Thank you for your considerate response. I apologize for my first post. I was overtired, and I could have worded things better. I believe I understand your perspective. I have two main issues though. We are not a theocracy, and secondly, I strongly believe the "so called right" has had an affect as to that the gay community as a whole believes most Christians hate them. This doesn't help us in our callings of spreading the gospel, and loving as you love yourself. I probably would agree with you on many, many issues, but your post seems (and I am not saying you are) Pharisaical. I believe that many people enter into marriage where there is deceit in their hearts where God does not honor the marriage. I am not talking marriage here either. Simply that a person who is gay should have the same rights as the most devout Christian. We are called to love as how we want to be loved, so put yourself in a gay person's shoes. Sure, as Christians, we have a different perspective than the world, but wouldn't you want to given simple basic rights, as heterosexuals. Doesn't all this, push gays further away from God, as we are supposed to (by the Holy Spirit) guiding them to Jesus. All of us are easily susceptible to rationalization. Most of us (even Christians) hold onto some lie that we have embedded deep inside. Lastly, in response to our search for truth being over once we find Jesus, I just ask you why are there so many denominations, with such varying beliefs? Why did Jesus warn us of false teachers and teachings, especially in the end times, where many will be deceived? Again, thank you for overlooking any harshness in my first post, and God Bless.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your additional comments. Believe me, I am not trying to be contentious or "Pharisaical." I am a man who was delivered from great depths of sin in my late 40's. I am now a man of great conviction (think for a moment what that word means) and I am under orders to share what I know with others.

I still maintain that I, a heterosexual, have no rights that are denied any homosexual. A homosexual man has as much right as anyone to marry a woman--that is what is called marriage.

To see others decieved and living lives of sin and to say nothing or give our assent does not demonstrate Christian compassion. I do not hate homosexuals nor do I discriminate against them in any way. But I will not withold my beliefs and convictions because I care for these souls like I care for all the lost. I was once one of the them and it was the patient compassion and teaching of Christian friends that softened my heart for the Lord.

There are different Christian denominations because there are men of differing opinions. In most cases a leader becomes focused on a narrow teaching or point in Scripture a then proceeds to build a whole theology around that. That is why God gave us His Word in Scripture. We can always go to the source and, in prayer and guided by the Holy Spirit test the teachings of men. I attend a Southern Baptist church but I know there are Christians of many other denominations that are just as saved and just as filled with the Holy Spirit as are any Baptists. Denomination means little to me and, I suspect, to God.

Bob Ellis said...

I'm not sure where you missed the point, TruthSeeker, but Obama wasn't just taking a "live and let live" approach to homosexuality, and he wasn't taking a "love the sinner but hate the sin" approach either--in fact, he doesn't even see it as a sin.

If you see something as a sin, you may not use the power of government to stamp it out, but you certainly don't excuse it, enable it, and make it not only easier for people to practice it, but work diligently to elevate it to the level of full legitimacy.

That is exactly what Obama is doing when he says homosexuals should have legal recognition for their unions (whether you call it "marriage" or by some other name approximating marriage).

I am not above sin myself, either, but I don't go around saying my sin isn't sin, as many homosexuals and their apologists do. I also don't demand that society call my cursing, anger, or whatever my sin may be "legitimate" and "natural" and "healthy."

God has called his people to love one another and love those caught in sin. He has also called his people to call sin what it is and call each other to a higher standard--God's standard.

There is no room for compromise of God's standards in order to convince someone--homosexuals or other--that we and Christ loves them. Christ proved his love on the cross; there's nothing greater he can do. And he died on the cross BECAUSE God's standard of holiness is uncompromising; otherwise, God could have just waved a wand and declared everyone's sins "forgiven."

God recognized that even after Christ's great sacrifice, there would be those who will choose their life of sin over him; that's why he made it clear that some would make it to heaven and some wouldn't, that some would accept Him and some would reject him.

If we intend to remain true to what God has said is right, we don't have the right to say, "I'll ignore this rule of God's so I can convince homosexuals God loves them."

And it doesn't take a "theocracy" to enforce morality. Pretty much every law we have on the books is reinforced by the Bible; if we believe a Scriptural foundation for law is the test of "theocracy," then we'll have to make almost everything legal.

The state has an interest in protecting marriage that goes even beyond the theological and purely mora. Homosexuality in itself is a dangerous practice (homosexuals have much higher disease rates, including AIDS--72% of AIDS cases come from homosexual activity--higher domestic violence rates, higher substance abuse and suicide rates, and shortened lifespans). Since marriage and family is the most basic foundation of any society, the state also has an interest in protecting that, not only for the stability of the adult men and women in society, but especially for the children who would be subjected to a chaotic, unstable lifestyle and robbed of role models in the home from both sexes--part of what prepares young children to related to others when they become adults.

So there is absolutley no reason--beyond feel-good compromise--to accomodate homosexuals in the area of marriage and family and special rights, and every reason to maintain the integrity of the most foundational element of our civilization.

TruthSeeker said...

Thank you both for taking such time to respond to my post. I want you to know it is appreciated. I will admit an assumption in waiting for a response. My expectation was to reach out to a Pharisaical right wing er. It was a blessing to get such heartfelt responses. I apologize for expecting such a response. I was a psych major, and God has led me to go into ministry. I am very passionate about truth, and I did assume this blog was written with a political motive. I guess I would be closest to a Libertarian politically, but with our system would consider myself a democrat. I have no pro-gay agenda. In fact, I have only had one close acquaintance who decided he was gay.

What I was trying to point out was that I know all of the scriptures used in the blog. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I strongly believe the predisposition to this sin is rooted in childhood. I have always openly spoke of homosexuality as a sin. My issue takes place when I put myself in the theoretical situation of being in a homosexuals shoes, say for example, not being able to put my partner on my health insurance plan. This is where I do not believe the government has the right to deny that. It only alienates the person, and seeking love and compassion pushes them deeper into the gay community where Christians are spoken of as bigots. This does not help our Christian cause.

Maybe I see it this way based on how I personally reach out to nonbelievers. I, first want to develop a trust (not that I hide my faith), then when I hear the Holy Spirit guiding me, I will start to share the truth with them, letting them guide me by trying to sense what they may be ready to hear as the Holy Spirit works in their hearts. I do not condone any sin, but I feel that a homosexual seeing our government take such a "moral" stand with civil unions, and then seeing all of the perversions they condone by allowing, leads him/her to feel that it is not the sin that is hated, but the sinner.

I don't believe we will see eye to eye here, but we at least gave each other a different point of view. Again, I thank you both for taking the time and love to respond with your sincere opinion. I will end this with a mention about denominations. A friend and myself had many conversations this past summer concerning finding a truly Bible believing church. We have been brought to tears over this many times. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus' true church will rise from many different denominations, as this is a personal relationship with our Lord, but I do believe God cares about the addition to or exclusion from His Word. God blessed us with a Pentecostal Church with a pastor who I truly believe is right where he belongs in the center of God's will. I do have a few differences with the denomination, but this individual Church does not stress these differences, and I praise God for leading us there.

My reason for bringing denominations in as an example is, in most cases not about whether one is saved, but is one in the center of God's will. Do they know and accept the amazing life God wants to bless us with when we are surrendered to Him. There is only one truth, and we are called to seek it. I see a lot of denominations as another way Satan uses to hold Christians down. Yes, we belong to Christ, but he will at all means try to hold us in bondages so we cannot fulfill God's plans for us for His Glory. I thank you again, and may God Bless and use you mightily. My name is Joe by the way.

Bob Ellis said...

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, TruthSeeker.

Just one (relatively) brief comment on what you said about a homosexual who wants to put his partner on his health plan.

Some companies already allow this (voluntarily, without government coercion), and that's their call. Though I believe it is motivated for the wrong reasons (an effort to allow homosexual couples to “approximate” a marriage union), many if not most of such plans are structured in such a way that they also allow access to a non-sexual dependent who would not otherwise be eligible to be on the plan. In doing so, they lend to themselves some air of non-homosexual credibility.

The problem with benefits and arrangements that are intended to approximate those available only to married people is that such arrangements undermine the unique value and status of marriage—something that is already eroded enough without additional undermining. The marriage union between a man and a woman is a unique relationship, the only one of it’s kind in the universe, instituted by God since the beginning of the human race.

When we allow it to be “copied” or “redefined,” we undermine it’s uniqueness, value, and the status it should rightly be afforded. Just as we don’t allow our currency to be counterfeited, because it devalues the original, so we shouldn’t allow the valuable institution of marriage to be copied, redefined or counterfeited.

The state has an interest, both in the stability of society in aggregate and in the welfare of families and children, to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life, as the family standard. And while that has theological underpinnings, it goes well beyond the theological into what some refer to as the “real world.”

TruthSeeker said...

One comment that came on my heart, just in case anyone is still checking this blog. I stayed away from this view, and I am not accusing anyone of this, but I just want to mention one final note. If we are talking at all about the sacredness of marriage as Christians, then I fail to see the ramifications of two homosexuals being in a legal civil union, when there is so much pornography, adultery, and noncommittal views of marriage destroying marriages, and our society. God Bless.

Bob Ellis said...

TruthSeeker, it goes back to what I said about the devaluation of marriage when it is counterfeited--not to mention putting children at risk when such legal recognition makes it easier for homosexual couples to adopt children. Domestic violence rates are much higher among homosexual couples, homosexual couples still experience a lot of extra-relationship sexual liaisons, homosexual relationships don't last nearly as long as heterosexual relationships (robbing children of even more stability), homosexuals molest young boys at a greater rate, and putting a child with two men or two women robs them of one or the other gender model they need to learn proper interaction between the sexes.

The state has a very, very compelling interest in protecting children--and society in general--from this kind of chaotic environment.

As for the other sexual and marital problems you mentioned, they are indeed problems...but why add to them by validating homosexuality and homosexual relationships? Instead of conceding defeat and saying "It's already so bad, what's the point?", we should redouble our efforts to restore the proper respect for marriage and God's design for human sexuality.

TruthSeeker said...

Bob, Hope you don't mind me responding again. I agree completely with the premise of your last post. The issue for me is that when I hear most Christians voice their opinion on gays, I do not hear the above stated problems mentioned. When it comes to homosexuality I see a big difference in how many Christians react. It is not the same as other sins. Many Christians being told by someone that they are gay, creates feelings much different than someone saying they watch pornography, had an affair, or that they got a divorce because they fell out of love. I truly believe the perspective that the Church has allowed to be formed has been of one that pushes a homosexual further away from the Church, and thusly, usually God; instead of bringing them closer. You have to admit in many hearts there is a big difference between these sins.

My voice in this conversation started because I assumed it to be a right wing attack against Obama. I see the right wing politics as a whole being Pharisaical. Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but I believe they are all liars, and that we are on the brink of the end times. My concern (and God forgive me for not reaching out to the lost more) is for the Church to reach souls. In truth, I may agree with you more than these posts show, I just believe Jesus would want us all spending our time reaching out to homosexuals with love, truth, and compassion, than concerning ourselves with the concept of civil unions. Maybe your right, but, believing that many Christians who have a far reaching voice in this country display a bigotry, instead of love, my concern has more to do with bringing the lost closer to the Lord. Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. It isn't the belief, but how said belief is expressed that concerns me.

Did you see the uproar that was caused by the gospel singer that was in the "week of Gospel music" Obama had in South Caralina. I can't recall his name, but he had had problems with homosexuality in his past, and through prayer he was freed (Praise God). Some (ones with far reaching voices), screamed he was a bigot, and wanted Obama to stop him from being in the services. There in lies my concern. This man, as far as I know, never spoke out against gay people, he never made bigoted comments, but because of what has been allowed to be believed about Christians he was seen as the enemy. How many adulterers do you know that see the Church as the enemy?

Bob Ellis said...

Homosexuality is often seen differently because it really does run contrary to nature, both as instilled in us by God’s word, and what we simply see biologically and physically. For that reason, we can be repulsed by it on a level we might not experience at, say, vandalism, or even adultery.

On one level, I’d say it’s a sin like any other sin, and God rejects all sin, so in that sense it’s no better or worse than any other. But God repeatedly revisits this one in both Old and New Testaments, and uses pretty strong language about it in a few passages. I believe God may view homosexuality a little more harshly because human sexuality is also a reflection of God’s relationship with man, especially as expressed between Christ and the Church (remember the passages referring to the Church as the bride of Christ?). So when two men or two women express sexuality together, they are not only acting contrary to God’s design and intent for human sexuality, they are undermining and casting great aspersion on how Christ’s relationship to the Church is perceived.

Another reason there is so much friction between homosexuals and Christians is that, unlike most sins (say theft, murder, adultery, etc.) a large number of practitioners insist, contrary to scripture and to nature, that their behavior is normal, natural and healthy. While some adulterers may try to excuse their behavior (e.g. “My wife didn’t love me” or “It just happened” or “God would want me to be happy”—all inadequate excuses, by the way), deep down they know their behavior is wrong; after all, you don’t see adulterers petitioning society for special rights, special protections, and demands that their behavior be accepted as fully moral and acceptable. You don’t see that of too many thieves, drunkards or drug addicts either (you may hear “It’s my body” or “It’s my business”, but you’ll seldom hear “My substance abuse is normal, natural and healthy”). This arrogant insistence that everything is “right as rain” rubs harshly against those of us who know, Biblically and naturally and scientifically, that homosexuality is immoral, contrary to God’s Word and design, and is a very unhealthy lifestyle.

Sometimes Christians who know homosexuality is wrong can respond too forcefully, and I know I’ve done so myself. It can be very difficult to respond to such arrogance with grace. But God has made it clear that we are to respond firmly to error, especially error that can lead others astray. If you examine the life of Jesus while he was here on earth, you’ll notice that he didn’t respond to everyone in the same way. Some he spoke to gently, others firmly, and still others (who were completely unwilling to hear the truth) very forcefully. I can’t say that I always get it right, but I try to follow the example of Christ in who and what I’m responding to.

Obama’s statements that spawned this post were, at best, incredibly ignorant Biblically and theologically, and I fear were intentionally designed to mislead. Missing God’s standard is bad, but distorting His standard takes things to a whole new level. You may recall the admonitions in the Bible about the greater responsibility of a teacher (or leader), and the harsh words God has for those who lead others astray.

The man you mentioned who was saved out of homosexuality is viewed as an enemy because he is proof that homosexuality is a choice, and is something we can be freed from (as God freed me from drunkenness and heterosexual immorality). Sadly, many homosexuals and homosexual apologists will never see people like me and that man as anything more than enemies, because verbally and nonverbally we remind them that they can change, but haven’t. That they COULD meet God’s standard through Jesus Christ…but haven’t.

We try to win those we can to the way of Life, but God makes it clear that not all will respond. Some will emphatically reject the way of Life. I believe God regrets that with all his heart, but nevertheless his justice demands eternal separation from him if they refuse to renounce their sin.

And compromising what God’s truth is doesn’t move the sinner one inch closer to heaven; it’s only an attempt to move heaven an inch closer to the sinner…something that is impossible.

Dakota Voice
 
Clicky Web Analytics