Archive for July, 2015

kspwicked - Copy

By J/A and Dr. James Ach

“And unlike abortion, gay marriage remains an act rooted in love….In the case of same-sex marriage, our work is just beginning. We must now repent of the injustices we have perpetrated on LGBT people”. Karen Swallow Prior, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and the Bigger Picture.

“WHAT INJUSTICES? Calling homosexuality sin? calling them to repentance?” James White, July 16, 2015.

This is probably the most awkward post we have ever written. It involves some major concessions toward a person that we have long held as a theological adversary. We had 27 articles on this website and a few others that ripped JD Hall of Pulpit and Pen apart, not including probably several hundred tweets between at least three of us that help with this site. It got to the point where we were attacking what JD ate for breakfast if there was something about the way he said it that was objectionable. Although JD Hall has raised a number of very important issues, we gave our tacit approval to those he attacked by contributing to his character assassination, even though we agreed with what he was saying against men in the Southern Baptist Convention. In other words, we were attacking JD Hall in the midst of his pursuing issues that we ALSO opposed. We could have taken this opportunity to also join with those who have thrown Hall under the bus, but there’s much bigger issues that Hall has raised that simply should not, can not be ignored.

Most of all, although we have never directly accused Hall (or James White) of being responsible for the death of Braxton Caner, we tied together enough circumstantial evidence to give that impression. We regret that and sincerely apologize. Moreover, we have a certain “hunch” that the facts of that “suicide” are not what the mainstream has been told. Although we can not, for legal reasons, make any public statements about our suspicions, we can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that JD Hall did NOT have anything to do with Braxton’s death and without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary it was wrong for us to give the impression that a man was guilty of murder. JD did show remorse and repentance over his interaction, but then apparently recanted. But after much reflection, what did people expect? His expression of repentance was turned into murder confession by his opponents. What person with a ministry, wife and children on the line would not defend themselves given Ergun Caner’s propensity for suing his enemies?  And Hall didn’t sue those who accused him. 

Do we regret Hall’s attitude? Yep. Do we still despise Calvinism? 95% (we do like street preachers like Miano, Colin Maxwell, and Chris Dean, even though we will continue to debunk Maxwell’s ideology on a regular basis 🙂 ). Will we fight over KJVO issues with Hall, and his friends, Fred Butler, James White? You bet. We are not defending JD Hall’s attitude, his brash tactics, and most of his methods (not like ours have been any better), but we do share his frustration with Christians who seem to like crab diving in sand dunes-face first. John Wesley (Non Calvinist) and Jonathon Edwards (Calvinist) still agreed together against many of the vices that plagued the church as a whole even though they had sharp differences in their theology. There will of course, always be a modicum of separation because of those differences, but we are living in a time where laws are quickly evolving that are eroding personal liberties, and we will agree with these men on those issues necessary to help insure our continued ability to preach the gospel without hindrance, at least to the extent we are able in America (although not so much in Israel for Brother Ach).

Since the recent Supreme Court decision approving sodomite marriages, cultures around the world are on a fast track to hell in a hand basket, and very few Christians are standing their ground. As much controversy as their has been between Calvinists and “Arminians” (an unfortunate designation used to describe anyone who is not a 5 Point Calvinist), the only visible fist-shakers are the fundamentalists, which include IFB, and Calvinists. What JD Hall has in his favor is that his tract record against compromisers is impressively accurate, particularly in the areas regarding Louisiana College, Brewton-Parker College and Ergun Caner, and Lifeway Christian Books, to name just a few.

This week, Hall unloaded another bomb against the the Southern Baptist Convention’s (“SBC”), Ethics and Religious Commission (“ERLC”)  in an article that identified English professor at Liberty University and ERLC member, Dr. Karen Swallow Prior (“KSP”), as a gay affirming research fellow appointed to the commission by Dr. Russell Moore. We want to save room to state our own findings so we won’t rehash many of the facts already presented elsewhere, but there have been a number of other articles excusing “defending” Dr. Prior (if you can call them defenses*), and then rebuttals offered by Hall himself, as well as James White and Robert Gagnon. We personally believe that White’s recent response has the most accurate description of the root of the problem, we are not even going to bother trying to improve on it. If you refuse to take the time to listen to this presentation, you are not qualified to defend Karen Prior! (Her crowd gets to make up their own standards, so we’re making up ours!). We apologize if you don’t get enough context here if you like to shop at one store, but we lose readers after 2,000 words, and there’s some things we really want the readers to see that will make you question Dr. Russell Moore’s sanity.

The Basic Facts Against Karen Swallow Prior. It’s Much Bigger Than We Imagined

Keep this in mind: Karen Prior is a teacher at a BAPTIST college, and a member on an ethics committee in a BAPTIST convention; a Baptist commission that has holds to a complementarian view of the home and gender roles, but of which KSP is opposed to (1). In addition to the facts already presented by Pulpit and Pen, we have the following issues against KSP:

KSP TAUGHT AT A JESUIT COLLEGE

In a magazine article where KSP opines about her opposition to nuclear weapons (not a very conservative view there, but I digress) she admits that she taught at a Jesuit college. She also refers to a Catholic priest as “Father” (See Matthew 23:9), and discusses how she started a Feminist group. The Episcopal church she attended was also a gay-affirming church.

A few years and many more abortion protests later, I was starting a local chapter of Feminists for Life, attending an Episcopal church, heading up a small private school in the inner city, teaching at a Jesuit college, and reading the poetry of Father Daniel Berrigan, the famous Vietnam-era anti-war activist who was now being arrested for protesting abortion

An article from the Feminists For Life website reveals some interesting beliefs of the foundation,

“I am a liberal. I believe in a comprehensive, government-funded social welfare network, national health insurance, more spending on foreign aid, and a reduced military budget. I am also a liberal Jew. I believe in a symbolic interpretation of the Bible and support women’s and marriage equality within Judaism.” Sharon B. Long, Metamorphosis, Feminists for Life

As of this moment, FoF is still listed on her Facebook page as a point of contact, and as far as 2012 she was still referring followers there,

Feminist does not (should not) necessarily mean pro-choice

In her book, “Booked”, she dedicates the third chapter, “God of the Awkward, Freckled and Strange“, to a Jesuit priest named, Gerard Manley Hopkins.

*In an article posted by Reading Acts, a “top ten” list of books are suggested by KSP to “challenge Christian thinking”. Two of these ten books, are pro-Jesuit (The Sparrow, Mary Doria Russell, and Silence, by Shusako Endo)

KSP has quite the affinity for the Jesuits.

KSP RECOMMENDS HER FOLLOWERS FRIEND PRO-GAY CATHOLICS (2)

Karen Swallow Prior retweeted Daniel Mattson

So proud of my friend, . Follow him!

Karen Swallow Prior added,

KSP GIVES PRAISES TO THE POPE OF ROME

Why I Love Pope Francis’s Radical (Not Really) Take on the Gospel via

KSP would also agree the Pope should do more to help with nuclear weapons.

Pope Francis: Do More To Ban Nuclear Weapons

And apparently, KSP needs to make sure the air is clear  what the Pope said about Iraq,

What Pope Francis really said about the crisis in Iraq via

KSP WAS A SPOKESPERSON AND ORGANIZER FOR A CATHOLIC ABORTION PROTEST GROUP

We are glad that KSP opposes abortion. However, good works do not excuse associating with the whore of Babylon. According to Mother Jones Magazine (a Catholic publication) KSP was the spokesperson and organizer for the Catholic group, Spring of Life. KSP is currently a member of a pro-Catholic protest group called Consistent Life.  This group was initially “Seamless Garment” in honor of the Pope’s “Seamless Garment Theology“.

KSP IS AN ACTIVE FEMINIST

As noted above, Karen is an active professing feminist. Although KSP attempts to reinvent classical feminism, her slant on her Christian feminist views are simply evangelical syncretism. See an excellent short article by John MacArthur exposing this.  and for further detailed rebuttals, read Wayne Grudem’s, Evangelical Feminism, and the  review of said book by Albert Mohler.  We’re not going to spend a lot of time making a case against her feminism here as our target audience are those who should already be familiar with it, and know why there’s no place for it in a Baptist church, let alone an ethics commission.  And as noted afore, the president of the ERLC himself has previously written against it.

What is disturbing about her feminism is that she associates with other feminist groups that promote humanism, such as the group she belongs to, Ladies of Liberty, of which promotes the radical Indian humanist feminist group, Nurmukta (see screenshot below, (2)).

CONCLUSION

We are going to issue a part 2 to address the pathetic excuses that have been offered in defense of KSP. Karen Prior’s actions are a perfect example of the growing danger of ecumenism creeping into the churches. KSP embraces an emergent church philosophy that is rhetorically dishonest in it’s appeal to her followers using emotional and semanitcal manipulation (which has even included her accusing JD Hall of “attacking” her because she is a woman, here and here)  While she claims to oppose homosexuality (like Obama claims to support the Constitution as Hall pointed out), she gives those who identify as such (or those who attempt to merely move semantical goal posts by exchanging “gay” for “same-sex attraction”) every indication that they do not need to repent, call their sin what it is, an abomination (I have yet to see Karen refer to homosexuality as such), and disassociate from all of it’s labels, rhetoric, and those who support it. Karen uses the very language of the “LGBT community” -including their condemnations of the church- in a sort of confused approach/avoidance, ambiguous way, which gives implicit approval of their means of expression, the very means they consistently rely on to manipulate supporters, the media, and gullible Christians.  Karen’s excuses have rendered passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:11 meaningless.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

 Abstain from all appearance of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:22

 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Ephesians 5:11

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

KSP is permitting gays to be comfortable and accepted in their lifestyle when they need to be ashamed and convicted before God-like the rest of us. Luke 13:3-5, Romans 12:20-21. God did not sit in heaven scratching His head, “Son, we need to come up with a different plan for ‘gays'”.  She gives credence to the idea that the Christian witness is only meaningful if we capitulate to their nuances first, and just “play nice” (although ironically, one of her oft quoted defenders was “Turretan Fan”, a theonomist that believes in the death penalty for homosexuals. Not only is that not very “loving” but KSP herself opposes ALL forms of the death penalty, other than those defending her of course). Why does a thief, a drunkard and a murderer express shame and guilt over their sin, but a homosexual must be apologized to for having been offended by “hate speech”? Why do homosexuals get classifications that no other sin gets to have? Why isn’t criticism against chronic adulterers or serial fornicators called “hate speech”?  So many anomalies among the “gay community” that Karen has no meaningful and challenging polemic for.

The modern movement to allow homosexuals into churches without repenting of homosexuality is unscriptural. Bible believers are not “homophobic” any more than they are “adulteryphobic” or “thiefphobic” or “lierphobic.” They do not hate homosexuals. They simply believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin before God and that men must repent of sin in order to be saved.” David Cloud, The Emerging Church and Homosexuality

Yet it is not merely KSP’s unbiblical coddling of homosexuals that is a problem, but also her associations with the biggest enemy of the church outside of the devil himself: ROME. From an admitted background in a Jesuit education system, Karen has endorsed, recommended, suggested, the works and friendship of numerous Catholics from Jesuit priests all the way up to the antichrist pope himself. She is being used to build bridges in the ERLC and Liberty University (and among her followers and fans elsewhere) to Vatican City, and none of her followers and defenders are even blinking an eye at this. [New Addition] In fact, in 2014, Karen promoted a Catholic article that called for others to stop referring to Catholicism as a false gospel:

ksptweetcatholicdefense - Copy

That is terrifying.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:4

kspdrmoorepope - Copy

 

 

 

 

 


 

*We have already addressed one of her defenders, Rory Tyer, here, “Did Jesus Really Eat With Sinners?”

One of the recent more popular objections offered by KSP’s defenders is that she was at a Lesbian Gay Film Festival (just sit on that for about 5 seconds and carry on) to “evangelize”. What her “evangelism” consisted of was reading a chapter out of her book, “Booked”, which received quite the accolades-from pro- gays! (such as Jon Merritt) One such attendant notified us that no gospel message with a demand for repentance was given, although this person refuses to “go on record” so we will have to chalk that up as hearsay, but there has been no evidence that KSP was invited there to give the gospel, nor that she in fact, did. One has to wonder how a Christian who professes to oppose homosexuality even gets invited to such an event in the first place. Again, let that resonate: Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I surely can’t see them inviting David Cloud, or James White, or Robert Gagnon.

We also had a Twitter war with Chris Bolt, whose view we thoroughly debunked regarding his obfuscating attempt to make James White’s debates in a mosque synonymous with Karen’s reading from a book at a gay FESTIVAL. You would think that any half witted moron could tell the difference between a FESTIVAL which is the celebration of an event or idea, and a DEBATE where the gospel is being vigorously contended and argued for against those who would probably rather chop White’s head off. Of course, we do have our own opinions about White’s Calvinism and textual issues that he presents to Muslims, but White still presents an orthodox view of the gospel, that we have to agree, would result in a persons salvation if they believed it and turned to Christ in repentance.  We need to state that here because there’s going to be KSP defenders attempting to point to our other articles opposing Calvinism, White in particular, as a red herring to avoid the issues against KSP.


 

EXHIBITS

The screenshots I was given were of graphics that were created out of twitter snips onto a word doc. So I am simply posting what I have that contains those screenshots as I was not given the individual smaller pictures. Totally unprofessional looking, I know, sue me .

1. swallowmoore - Copy

 

(2)

 

kspfeminism - Copy

 


 

UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES

Debunking KSP’s “I Meant Different Kinds of Love” Excuse

LOVE: Karen has responded on another blog about what she meant by “gay marriage is rooted in love”. Although her defense is still gay-affirming, this is her excuse explanation:

As far as what I meant about gay marriage being rooted in love, I never imagined that anyone who has even a mild interest in Christian theology and doctrine would be unaware of the different kinds of love. I honestly did not know that pastors (let alone so-called discernment bloggers) existed who do not know this:

First of all, if Karen wanted others to understand her sentiment as a reference to “other” kinds of love, why didn’t she just say so? I mean, if she expects theologians to understand there are different kinds of love, shouldn’t we expect an English professor to make her statements clear? Moreover, was her target audience theologians? I mean, come on, if this information is something known to theologians, must we assume that everybody is aware of the four distinctions in Greek of love? So either her target audience consisted of theologians, or she’s being rhetorically dishonest. We have to assume that as an English professor she would expect her target audience to interpret her intent in the manner in which every day English speakers would read it, not how a theologian knowledgeable in Greek would construe it.

However, even giving her the benefit of a doubt (which we are not wont to do here), which love is she referring to? because all of the “other” loves in the Bible that are related to sexual relationships are always in the context of a 1-man-1-woman relationship. So was Prior claiming that she meant gay marriage is rooted in agape (ἀγάπη) love? I would hardly think that if Karen knows anything about Greek, and the various types of love that she pawns this excuse off on, she would at least have the decency not to attribute the strongest expression of love to homosexual relationships.

Did she mean philia (φιλία) love? If that were the case, then she couldn’t have qualified a conversation about sexual relationships among gays, not even same SEX attraction, because phileo is never intended to convey the concept of attraction, not even toward male toward female and vise versa. So we know she couldn’t have meant phileo love. Plus, the comment was about MARRIAGE which kind of rules of mere friendship and “celibate committed same-sex relationships” altogether.

Did she mean storge (στοργή)? the kind of affection shown in a parent/child relationship? Awk-ward!! [squeaky voice]

And finally, eros (ἔρως), used mostly to describe passionate and sexual love, between a male and female. However, if she means eros, is she granting homosexuals permission to claim their “love” is rooted in a Biblical expression of eros? She couldn’t have meant a perverted expression of eros because that just simply doesn’t exist in the Bible. Why didn’t she clarify that she meant to express that “their acts are rooted in a misguided and misunderstood version of love”? Wouldn’t something along those lines been a little less ambiguous than “gay marriage IS an act ROOTED IN LOVE”?

Karen has shot herself in the foot with her excuse. Even taking her explanation at face value, it doesn’t clarify her position any better than it did the first time she said it without the qualification. In fact, if anything, it makes her statement even worse. However, given that she deferred to this excuse, isn’t she then obligated to state which one she meant instead of just leaving us hanging waiting for the sequel?

Nevertheless, don’t believe for a second that she really intended to say “Oh, I really meant different kinds of love”. She had every opportunity to clarify her statement the first time. She said exactly what she wanted to say by using the rhetoric of the “gay community” which is kind of obvious by the fact she also used their condemnations (that the church needs to repent of its injustices toward them, another unqualified quip).

But let’s give her a chance to clarify this blunder. Tell us Karen, if you meant “different kinds of love”, WHICH ONE?

UPDATE JULY 28, 2015

KSP retweets a gay-affirming website, Q-Ideas, who is hosting her articles

morekspgay

 

And here’s an excerpt of KSP praising the hell-rejecting Rob Bell on “Love Wins” and a few other heretics (including the pro LGBT advocate, Rachel Held Evans),

kspbell - Copy

Advertisements

J/A and edited by Dr. James Ach

The above statement* from Rory Tyer has become one of the most misquoted mantras among so-called “Christian” homosexual advocates, and it’s based on the idea that since Jesus ate with sinners, then a Christian who opposes homosexuality is required to do the same in order to establish their credibility and authority to speak about the Bible on such issues.  Apparently, the Son of God would have had “zero credibility” had He not had lunch with Liberalace. In fact, the Father probably would have told His Son that the cross needed to wait until He made the rounds of all the homosexual dinner parties (although the passage in question here never says the sinners Christ ate with were homosexuals. Homosexuality among Jews was unheard of, even among the most vile).

Never-mind that whatever misunderstandings “LGBT” advocates like Rory Tyer, Matthew Vines and Rachel Held Evans have about who Jesus ate with, that Paul made it clear in the New Testament that even if a person claims to be a Christian who practices such immorality, that we are not supposed to eat with them.

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” 1 Corinthians 5:11

Let’s also forget for a minute that the context of this quote just happens to be about the attitude of the church in “affirming” the sexual immorality of one of its members. So did Jesus really eat with sinners? and if so, what does the Bible mean by it? Does it mean what Tyer and other homosexual advocates say it means? Or do they have an ulterior motive for twisting this passage into something Christ never meant for it to convey?

What does the Bible really say about Jesus “eating with sinners”?

First of all, let’s be clear that Matthew Vines, Rory Tyer, Rachel Evans, David Gushee, et al, have zero interest in the authority of Scripture, and what it actually says about their opinions of homosexuality. These advocates of immorality have merely created their own system of checks and balances to establish what is considered a credible opponent based on an arbitrary measure of standards and ultravisceralism. The consequences of this flawed logic are that the only people Jesus truly died for are those He ate with.

Secondly, we need to understand there’s a difference between fellowship and calling people to repentance. The Bible is clear that friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4, 1 John 2:15-19). And Paul is clear, quoting the OT, that Christians are to have no FELLOWSHIP with belial (2 Cor 6:17-17). The only kind of “fellowship” Jesus had with sinners at a dinner table was to reprove their darkness (Eph 5:11). Tyer and Vines have reinvented “eating” in the way that the Bible would define “fellowship” in such a way that Scripture on either subject are rendered meaningless.

Thirdly, the analogy is self-defeating as used by advocates like Vines and Tyer because while they avow that Christ ate with SINNERS, they do not confess that their actions are sinful. So while they expect Christians who oppose homosexuality to capitulate to them by affirming their lifestyle first in order to even begin to have enough credibility to critique their views, the Bible shows the exact opposite, that the Saviour comes to your table to expose your sin; but Vines and Tyer have by definition, made Christ a liar (1 John 1:8).

The Scripture Passages In Question on Jesus Eating With Sinners

The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! Luke 7:34 (see also Matthew 11:19)

The first obvious thing to note here is that Jesus did not refer to sinners as His friend* (see notes), He is repeating what the Pharisees said about Him. Thus, the line about Jesus being “Friend of Sinners” is an accusation against Christ from His enemies, not a saying that Christ affirmed. It was the Pharisees man-made tradition that determined that Christ’s association with them made Him ritually unclean.

Jesus then went to the house of a Pharisee that had bidden Him, and while there, the self-righteous Pharisee pointed out the sins of another as if he was not a sinner himself. Jesus corrected the Pharisee’s logic by offering an illustration about debtors and asking the audience who would love the most out of the one forgiven most. Jesus was not there to laugh over old parties and discuss how fun sin is, or the joys of offering children to Molech, or the salary raises that Rome offered to the local Sanhedrin to keep the Jews in line. He was there to call sinners to repentance. Luke 19:10.

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. ” Mark 2:17

Those whom Christ met with were not people who had their mind already made up about their sin, unlike Tyer and Vines. He did not go to any sinner’s house with the intention of considering the possibility that His definition of sin was wrong, or that He might not be the Son of God. Christ went to a sinner’s house to preach about sin and salvation, and that He, as very God, was the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law. Romans 10:4. However, Christ did not need the approval of those who invited Him to dinner to validate His authority or credibility.

For whatever other reasons that folks like Vines and Tyer think Jesus had for “eating with sinners”, the doctrine laid out for the church in the rest of the New Testament makes it clear that a believer is not supposed to eat with unrepentant sinners. It is an erroneous position to hold that accepting the views of homosexual advocates and the proverbial “having dinner” with them is a valid Biblical prerequisite to having a debate or even a meaningful discussion about the Biblical proscriptions against a lifestyle that the Bible declares to be an abomination. Furthermore, Jesus also met with adulterous women at water wells, too. So does that mean to be considered a “credible” Christian opponent, every professing Christian needs to visit a backwoods community with wells and have a drink with the local adulteress in order to establish their “credibility”?

The demand that believers who oppose homosexuality to “have dinner” with the homosexuals in order to have the right to voice their concerns is a cop-out to avoid having to answer for their indefensible lifestyles. It is deliberately intended to shift the focus off of the Biblical issues against homosexuality on to who has the right to discuss them at all, and if advocates like Vines and Tyer can convince their crowd that Christians have to meet “hurdle 1” before they will discuss “hurdle 2”, they can successfully brainwash their followers into believing that their opponents have no legitimate arguments past hurdle 2, and therefore there’s no reason to give them the time of day. They can conveniently avoid any criticism or even discussion of their errors by erecting a bogus video game type tier system where you have to beat your opponents on levels 1-9 before you get a chance to fight the boss on level 10. Although, in this game, the levels are rigged to purposely prevent the opponents the boss knows can beat him from ever having to face such  challengers. This is why Vines and Gushee have consistently and repeatedly rejected the offers to publicly debate James White, Michael Brown, or Robert Gagnon.

What Tyer, Vines, Held, and their ilk mean by “Jesus ate with sinners” is not what the New Testament says. Tyer means that a Christian must compromise his convictions and Biblical truth with the bread of  “neutral” declarations that must put ones brain at level 0 first to prove that he can be reasonable and objective (while having no intention himself of ever-changing his own mind) and demonstrate that you have the ability to give hyper-emotionalism as much equal weight as logic and Scripture before each party can talk about the Bible. Whereas Jesus entered into the homes of sinners with the authority of heaven, with a singular message and intent: repent and believe.

The issue here isn’t that LGBT advocates want Christians to “play fair” or “be nice” first. It’s the fact that they don’t want the discussion, period. But. they have to give some kind of lip service about objectivity to their audience  so they don’t give the appearance that their views are indefensible and based on lies and misrepresentations. Advocates like Vines, Tyer, Evans, Lee, et al, all know that if they were to ever subject their views to an open public debate with Christian representatives who can accurately dissect their views, they would lose the momentum they’ve gained with their gullible and uninformed audiences, and that’s not a risk they are willing to take. Therefore they will continue to erect these monuments of excuses to avoid having to honestly debate the issues and risk exposing their inability to rationally, logically, and Biblically argue their case against 4,000 years of established Biblical and church precedence.

While Vines calls the Biblical proscriptions against homosexuality “old cultural issues” Paul says preaching against homosexuality is, “sound doctrine” (1 Tim 1:10). While Rachel Held Evans tells Christians to quit complaining “for the gospels sake”, Paul says that fighting against this tide is according to the glorious gospel (1 Tim 1:11).  Christian, this IS, in fact, a gospel issue. A person who will not agree with God’s view of sin CAN NOT be saved. Those who refuse to admit that homosexuality is sin are the same as a person saying “I have no sin”, and God calls them liars and says the truth is not in them (1 John 1:8)

….and you don’t need a culinary degree to argue that.

___________________

*It would not be inconsistent for Jesus to refer to Jews as friend because his initial ministry was to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matthew 15:24, (“salvation is of the Jews” John 4:22), and the Psalms  prophesied that it was His friends that lifted up their heal against him Psalm 41:9. As a Jew, they would have been among the same families. However, since Jesus has laid the axe to the root of the trees now, the line has been drawn, there is a separation expected between believers and the world (Romans 16:17, 1 John 2:15-19, 2 Cor 6:14, 2 Thess 3:14) just as there was a separation between Jew and Gentile before the cross.

This is another dynamic to the story that is often ignored by those using the “Jesus was a friend of sinners” excuse.

UPDATE: Rory Tier wants us to remove his name as an LGBT advocate. However, with tweets like this, there’s no reason to do so:

If you haven’t eaten with an LGBTQ person out of love, your public credibility on understanding LGBTQ issues is near zero

__________________

As many contentions as we have with Pulpit and Pen and over some personal issues, we have removed every reference we can find on our website that does not attack doctrinal differences we have with them because issues that JD Hall and staff has raised against members in the SBC who are taking a damaging and damning “stance” on these issues are issues that are destroying the church’s ability to publicly discuss their faith without some kind of retribution because of evolving legal principles. Thus while we have a vehement disagreement with how Hall has conducted himself, he will have to answer to God for his character, YOU will have to answer to God for the things that he is right about (read carefully Matthew 23:3), and as much as we have fought with Hall and James White over a plethora of other issues, they are right about the challenges that the homosexual agenda brings to the church, and religious freedom.

We will still challenge those we disagree with about Calvinism and KJVO, but if the church doesn’t stand on these issues, we will eventually have to start meeting in caves to have those discussions. Right now it’s about learning to pick your battles wisely, because your ability to deliver the gospel unhindered depends on it.

[DRC Editors: We are reposting this here for now as a link has been redirected on Brother Cloud’s site, WayofLife.org, that does not show the entire article. We also note the recent story of Aaron and Melissa Klein,  owner of Sweet Cakes in Oregon, fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Please also see our recent article discussing the recent SCOTUS decision: The LGBT Conspiracy, It Has Never Been About Rights or Equality.
We are going to keep this article updated as new events relative to the subject develop. Updates will be after the end of the article]

.
What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?
Enlarged June 12 2014 (first published August 5, 2008)(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)
zz_gavel_1:14

If homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in Western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The rights to free speech and to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.

In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).

In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenixmerely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (“Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his eulogy, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDailyin America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.  It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,”LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith–any faith–if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives–if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.

********

That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve–one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years–without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.

After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family–the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign–the nation’s largest gay activist group–posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn’t Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores.

John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent:

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is.  He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people.  His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012).

After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hated of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint.

In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.

In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh–known as the supreme civil court of Scotland–ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton–an antiques-dealer–and Richards-Hill–an education technologist–exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. … Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Recordinterview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”

On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorites Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”

In April 2014, Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla (maker of the popular web browser Firefox) because of his support for traditional marriage. In 2008, he contributed $1,000 to back California’s Proposition 8 referendum which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman. A firestorm of criticism by intolerant homosexual activists and supporters, like a bunch of howler monkeys, forced Eich’s resignation within two weeks of his election to head Mozilla. Newt Gingrich called the pressure against Eich as a “blatant example of the new fascism.” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist.” RedState called it “a fascist purge.” Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia.” Even homosexual media personalities condemned the action. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce called it the “gay gestapo.” Andrew Sullivan condemned the “intimidating of free speech” and likened it to the inquisition of heretics.

In May 2014, a Miami Dolphins player was fined and sent to “educational training” after he tweeted a negative comment about the drafting of the first homosexual professional football player. When Michael Sams was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, Don Jones tweeted, “OMG” and “Horrible” (“NFL Player Fined,” The Blaze, May 11, 2014). The speech Nazis didn’t waste a minute in condemning this “homophobic” behavior, and Jones quickly apologized, saying that his comments were “inappropriate.”

In May 2014, AIDS expert Brendan Bain was fired for saying that homosexual sex acts are dangerous to those who practice them and to public health in general (“AIDS Expert Fired,” CharismaNews, May 21, 2014). In 2012, Professor Bain testified on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place, showing from his own research that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. Because of this testimony, he was fired this month from his position as director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. The homosexuals who are served by CHART believe that criminalizing homosexual acts forces the HIV epidemic underground and increases the HIV risk. The reality is that they don’t want to face the truth about their actions, so they seek to quiet every voice of opposition.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,”OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,”WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:

“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. …

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. …

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They’re not seeking equality; they’re seeking total control,’ she said. …

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,”Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California’s ban against “religious-viewpoint therapy for people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” And in January 2014 the federal court refused to review the case (“Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction,” Breitbart, Feb. 5, 2014). The court rejected the Liberty Counsel’s argument that the statue violates First Amendment rights of both counselors and patients. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

[As we speak, as of July 10, 2015, US Congress Democrats have introduced a bill that would essentially criminalize the use of the terms, “husband” and “wife”]

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).

Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality — SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.

In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’”

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its students loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”

The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. … Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. … ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,”The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to her religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Huguenins took the matter to court, but they have lost at every level. They lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart.com, Aug, 22, 2013). The judges went so far as to say that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is the price of citizenship. Justice Richard Bosson said, “The Huguenins are free to … pray to the God of their choice … But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. But in April 2014, in an ominous ruling against first amendment rights, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand against Elene Photography.

Legal pundits say that it is probable that the Supreme Court will wait until a federal appeals court rules on this issue before taking it into consideration, but it is ominous that the judges had no interest in giving immediate relief to Christians who are being oppressed by homosexual activists and by a government bent on advancing a “new morality.” This will create a climate in which it will be nearly impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to own a business or hold a job, particularly in government and education, if he or she is not willing to accept the government’s view of morality.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,”OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”

Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same=sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”

Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.”

The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. … After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue–both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ … Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”

The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ … attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”

The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands”

In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver Rape Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:

“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).

Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.

“Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city’s streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order,” said the organizer’s chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room–while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).

In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,”American Thinker, March 9, 2013).

In April 2013 the California Assembly Education Committee approved a bill that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender (“California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms,” Christian News, Apr. 18, 2013). “AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration. ‘We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,’ Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.”

The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. … Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as–and identify as–a girl.”

In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law–setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student’s gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want–and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. … Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It’s an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. … All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals–particularly young girls and young women–who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”

In February 2014, Maine’s supreme court ruled that a local school district discriminated against a fifth grade male student that “identifies as a female” when it refused to let him use the girls’ restroom (“Main Supreme Court Rules School Discriminated Against Boy,” Christian News, Feb. 4, 2014). The school offered to let the student use the staff bathroom, but on a 5-1 decision the court deemed that unacceptable. Lower courts had sided with the school district, but the state supreme court has overturned this ruling. Justice Warren Silver wrote on behalf of the majority. “Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.”

Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute observed, “It is imperative that parents in every state contact their elected officials to demand increased protections for student privacy. It is alarming that the Maine decision and similar pushes by transgender activists are blatantly ignoring the constitutional rights of the more than 99% of students who do not identify as transgender.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle–during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,”Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.

In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).

copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature- Receive these reports by email
“About” David Cloud
www.wayoflife.org______________________Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family, but they cannot be posted to web sites. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles in your writings, in sermons, in church bulletins, etc. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward” (1 Timothy 5:18).Goal:Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.Offering: We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications. We seek offerings only from those who are helped. OFFERINGS can be mailed or made online with with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or Paypal. For information see: www.wayoflife.org/about/makeanoffering.html.

 

UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES UPDATES

 

(more…)

Dr. James Ach

We recently wrote about “Pastor” Steven Anderson’s assisting Muslims in an attempt to stir violence against Jews in Dearborn, Michigan, and have recently learned that an e-book created by ISIS discovered in May of 2015 containing information on how to infiltrate America and Christian churches had references to Steven Anderson’s “Marching to Zion” documentary. We will be writing more on this in the near future.

We published a short expose throughout Twitter and Facebook recently that exposed a fatal flaw in Anderson’s logic regarding the execution of homosexuals, and we gave Anderson and his ignorant followers numerous chances to respond, albeit to no avail. Anderson’s followers refuse to practice what they preach.*

In all of Steven Anderson’s sermons on his theonomist views of enforcing Old Testament punishments for sodomites, Anderson relies heavily on Leviticus chapter 20. However, what Anderson, and all theonomists for that matter, ignore in expecting a secular, ungodly government such as America to carry out these punishments is that the very beginning of Leviticus 20 defines who is responsible for carrying out these punishments: it’s not the government , but the citizens.

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.” Deuteronomy 17:7

We see clearly here that is was not a Supreme Court, Department of Justice, or the Tempe Mount Police who carried out the judgment, it was the people, the civilians, not the secular government. So why is Anderson expecting someone else to do his job? Why hasn’t Anderson “cast the first stone”? Is he afraid of the government? Why is a man that defies the government at checkpoints to the extent of getting tazed, afraid to practice what he preaches?

This brings us to the main event. Steven Anderson has employed the assistance of Paul Wittenberger in the production of his “Marching to Zion” documentary, an anti-Semitic film that borrows the majority of its material from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (a forged document that was cited by Adolf Hitler in his justification of murdering Jews)-a book which is also sold by Wittenberger and Anderson on their website- and known Holocaust rejector, David Irving (who also wrote a book in defense of Adolf Hitler called “Hitler’s War” ALSO SOLD BY ANDERSON AND WITTENBERGER)

Wittenberger assisted in the production of a homosexual/lesbian movie called “Itty Bitty Titty Committee” 

Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a feminist, lesbian-related comedy film directed by Jamie Babbit. It was released on September 28, 2007

Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a feminist, lesbian-related comedy film directed by Jamie Babbit. It was released on September 28, 2007

Will Anderson start practicing what he preaches by executing his documentary producer?

For the record, while we believe that homosexuality is an abomination that will be judged by God,  it is not the job of a secular government to carry out Old Testament punishments for those crimes, nor is it the church’s (compare Paul’s treatment of the man caught sleeping with his mother in law in 1 Corinthians 5, and the follow-up in 2 Corinthians 7: a crime that would have been punishable by death prior to the cross). In fact, there’s not a single example in the New Testament of any church carrying out an execution.  Nevertheless, Anderson has shown what a liar and coward he is by throwing a temper tantrum over something that he is not willing to do himself, which exposes a gross inconsistency in his rhetoric, and likely proves that Anderson’s intention is to gather a Jim Jones/Charles Manson type following that will drink his Kool-Aid and eventually start carrying out his venomous encyclicalshitlerswar2 - Copy

andersonyeknownot - Copy

UPDATE:

We discovered that Steven Anderson was having premonitions about his wife prior to their marriage. Should he be stoned under the Old Testament?

andersonpremonition - Copy

Dr. James A, PhD

One of the arguments that “Christian Gays” such as Matthew Vines make is that a positive argument against homosexuality in the Bible can not be made against the absence of specific statements by Jesus that mandate such proscriptions (which is really a use of the fallacy known as argumentum ad ingorantium). However, that logic works both ways, and as we shall see, if God intended to permit gay marriage, He has played the greatest joke ever on the homosexual “community”. What follows are the results of gay marriage if the “logic” of Christian gay advocates were taken seriously.

_________________

*There are no proscriptions against divorce in the Bible for homosexuals. If a man marries a man, he must be stuck with him no matter what. Not even “adultery” or death can separate. 1 Corinthians 7 only permits a man to divorce a woman, and Romans 7 only permits remarriage after the death of a female spouse who was married to a male.

*There is no definition of adultery that includes members of the same-sex, thus a gay couple has no grounds in which to define “cheating”. Thus a gay couple can never accuse the other of being unfaithful.

*There is no guide on how to treat your “spouse”. Thus a gay couple does not have to submit as there is no “head” of family, which results in either couple having the ability to pull rank and with the possibility of creating a permanent impasse.

*A gay person does not have to properly understand his/her “spouse” by dwelling with them “according to knowledge” as Peter admonishes of straight couples. Peter’s rule is for a MAN to understand his WIFE. Therefore no gay person can ever complain that his spouse is mistreating him and/or fails to understand him.

*Gay males can’t stay home to raise children (that’s a whole other problem) since Paul limits that role to the mother (Titus 2:3-5), and 2 gay women can’t to work, since that role is relegated to the man. Granted, modern society has made it nearly impossible to achieve this with the burdens placed on the nuclear family, but BIBLICALLY that is the model family.

*Gay couples are not even under any obligation to love their spouse. Paul tells WIVES to submit to their HUSBANDS, and for the HUSBAND to love his WIFE. There is no Biblical mandate for a gay partner to love his other gay partner, and thus gay couples are under no Biblical obligation to love each other.

*Gay couples are under no obligation to refrain from being bitter against their “spouse” since Paul’s command is to the HUSBAND not to be bitter against his WIFE. Col 3:19. Therefore a gay partner may stay angry at his/her “spouse” as long as he/she wants to.

*A husband can’t get bailed out by a wife’s good conversation (1 Peter 3:1). Therefore, both gay couples will have to be on the same level theologically.

*Obviously, no gay couple could ever enter the ministry considering that of the 2 offices described in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, the qualifications are that a bishop and/or deacon must be the HUSBAND of one WIFE.

*A gay couple does not have to love their spouse AS they love themselves since this model is only for the HUSBAND to love his WIFE as himself. Eph 5:28

*The church will never be under any obligation to care for them if they ever become “widowed” since the duty of the church toward widows applies ONLY to a WIFE of one MAN. 1 Tim 5:9

*A gay couple can not even get engaged. The only models in scripture for a betrothal before marriage are between a male and female. Thus gay couples can just skip the betrothal altogether.

*A gay couple can refrain from sexual relations with his “partner” as a means of revenge since the proscription against using sex as a weapon only applies to male and female marriages. 1 Cor 7:4

*If the gay couple ever adopts, their children are never under any obligation to leave their house if the children should marry. Scripture holds that the cause of marriage begins with the spouse leaving FATHER and MOTHER. Thus, if you have a father and father, or mother and mother, then you are under no obligation to leave, and can mooch off of your gay parents forever!

*And finally, the biggest joke of all, is that there’s not one single example in the Bible of any prince, prophet, priest, pastor, parishioner, or even pedestrian of the same sex married to one another. So gays can just scratch out marriage altogether.

In summary, there’s absolutely no handbook on how to treat your gay spouse. If you are a so-called Christian gay, you can cheat on each other, lie, steal, and even beat each other into submission (and the best fighter will have to decide who submits since submission is not a requirement of either couple). You don’t have to love, respect, cherish or nurture your “partner”. That is the most miserable relationship criteria at worst, and the funniest joke God has ever played on humanity at best if God actually permitted “loving committed same-sex relationships”.

_______________________________________________

Be sure to read our most recent articles on the “gay” marriage debate:

Exposing Matthew Vine’s Deceptive Argument For “Loving Committed Relationships”

The LGBT Conspiracy and the Daniel Trap: It Has NEVER Been About Rights or Equality: Part 1

J/A ThM, and Dr. James Ach

UPDATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ARTICLE TO INCLUDE MATTHEW VINES, IMO, LYING ABOUT HIS “SALVATION” TESTIMONY

Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” offered a transcript of a video he’d posted about the Bible and homosexuality that we want to address. However, in this article we are not going to focus on the Biblical arguments against gay marriage or refute the arguments in support of it as argued in Vine’s video, that has already been done by others in a far greater capacity than what we have offered on the subject (* Resources listed below), but we will focus on one particular inconsistency in Matthew Vine’s presentation of his key argument in selling his gay “Christianity” to the masses.

Is Matthew Vines REALLY Arguing for “Loving Committed Relationships”?

Matthew Vines has pulled a sleight-of-hand trick on many defenders of traditional marriage (“TMA” or, traditional marriage advocates) and on his own followers regarding “committed same-sex relationships”. Vines has attempted to take the wind out of the TMA’s arguments against homosexuality by eliminating the sexual acts. In other words, TMA’s would have no grounds to assail homosexual behavior if he is not advocating for homosexual acts but merely celibate “committed relationships” between same sex couples. Naturally, if there is no opposition to a same-sex “loving” relationship, then it would logically follow that same-sex acts should not be prohibited, either, and although Vines is not claiming to argue for the latter conclusion, it is obvious that that his precisely his intention. Of course, Vines has never  thoroughly defined just what is a loving, committed, same-sex relationship (e.g., how is a loving homosexual loving committed relationship different than a loving, committed relationship between fraternal, biological brothers, and what is it that makes the former homosexual and what is it that makes the latter, brotherly) by Vines, but it nevertheless still reveals a gross inconsistency in his attack against Traditional Marriage, as follows.

If, as Matthew claims, that he is arguing for merely “committed relationships” of same-sex couples, then why is he defending the rights of homosexuals who do practice homosexual acts (as opposed to celibacy), and why does he continue to use the term “homophobia” as a pejorative term against TMAs? Has the term “homophobia” some how taken on a new meaning that refers to merely loving committed relationships between same sex couples? I trow not. Historically, “homophobia” has always referred to the opposition of homosexual ACTS as well has the overall homosexual DISPOSITION. Why then would Vines use the term ‘homophobia’ if he is not advocating a view that permits the homosexual acts of same sex couples?

Therefore, Vine’s is being quite disingenuous to give the appearance that he is arguing for loving committed same sex relationships that exclude the ACTS of sexual intercourse within those relationships, when the very language he uses to attack TMAs is derived from rhetoric that has always supported and defended homosexual intercourse.

Furthermore, if, as Vine’s contends, he is not arguing for the justification of sexual intercourse among same sex couples, but merely the relationship (a sort of gay eunuch with a gay eunuch partner who really love each other), then why does he spend so much effort in arguing against TMAs traditional defense of Scriptures that advocate against the “acts” of homosexual relationships?

Vine’s actions while claiming one thing, are actually clearly demonstrating something else. There’s nothing in Matthew Vine’s rhetoric to indicate that he is defending a mere gay friendship that does not-and would never-include sexual intercourse between 2 “loving and committed” same-sex couples**. Furthermore, why is Vines even trying to make his own distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual relationships? Seems like a guilty conscience trying to distance itself from a problem where the attempt to create dissonance itself reveals Vines’ true motive and the fact that he knows something about his argument needs to be covered up. But WHY?

If Vine’s can’t be honest about what he is really trying to promote, then he shouldn’t be trusted with his interpretations and representations of other Christian views on this subject, and especially his misinterpretations of Scripture.

__________________________________________________________

CAVEAT: Many of these resources are written by Reformed authors with which we have great theological differences. However, we are in almost complete agreement with their arguments against homosexuality, and although we will likely never agree on the centuries old debate over Calvinism or Bible versions, no other issue has the potential to destroy the freedom to express those views publicly in the way gay legislation and jurisprudence have in their ability to silence Christians of all stripes.

There are many other resources, but these are the ones that we have actually read and can recommend on this subject.

*RESOURCES:

Dr. Robert Gagnon’s Response To Matthew Vines 

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Robert Gagnon

God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines (This link will immediately open a download to the free e-book by Albert Mohler & SBTS Staff)

The Emerging Church and Homosexuality, David Cloud

Adultery and Sex Perversion, John R. Rice

Can You Be Gay and Christians? Dr. Michael Brown

The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality, James White [gasp]

Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options,  Norman Geisler This books covers ethics altogether, but has a chapter on homosexuality in Part 2 that is worth a read.

God Is Love, Peter Ruckman Although not a book on homosexuality, it covers the misuse by liberal Christians of the word “love” and deals with Biblical facts verses emotionally charged arguments.

The Truth About Homosexuals, Dr. Hugh Pyle

Be What You Are, Nathan McConnell

_______________________________________________

** We do find it a bit odd also that while same-sex couples argue that their attractions are natural, they are not normally attracted to same-sex FEATURES of their same sex.

…Let me explain.

More often than not, a gay male will take on the characteristics of a female, whether it be an effeminate walking style or hand gesture, feminine clothing or talking with a skewed lisp. It is an immediately recognizable characteristic of a gay male. Likewise many female gays take on a role of a male. Yet in attempting to distance themselves from their own sexuality to prove their gayness, they are in effect, shooting themselves in the foot because a person that claims to love the same sex should be attracted to his own features. The fact that he tries to escape from and alter his own appearance and mannerisms shows that the trait is not inherent and is not natural. In other words, the gay male does not appear to love his own maleness which is a self-contradiction in what he is actually claiming that he is in love with.

If gay males were consistent, there were be no visible difference between the gay male and the straight male. Yet gay males go out of their way to create a visible difference which would be unnecessary if they were inherently predisposed to their presentations.

One of the great things about sound Christian philosophy is that when the laws of logic are consistently applied they reveal the self-defeating flaws of arguments and behaviors that defy Biblical revelation. The arguments for same-sex relationships display just such an anomaly.

UPDATE: vinestestimony - Copy

Dr James Ach

andersonfreepalestine - Copy

Steven Anderson is proudly one of the most controversial “pastors” of the decade. With his rants against Navy SEAL Chris Kyle calling him a coward, and his recent remarks about praying for the death of president Obama and Bruce Jenner, as well as preaching that all homosexuals should be put to death by the government (a sentiment that he refuses to cast the first javelin on), Anderson has certainly riled up the ire of the anti-Christian communities, including gaining a recent spot on the Dr. Drew show as an example of what a nutcase Christian looks like.

Anderson is well-known for his rants against the nation of Israel, but recently, he took his venom one step further when he traveled from Arizona to Dearborn, Michigan to pass out anti-Jewish propaganda to Muslims. Of course, this mission was labeled as “winning Muslims to Christ” but let’s be realistic here; if you’re going to drive all the way from Tempe, Arizona, over a thousand miles to the greatest known population of Muslims in the United States and wear “Free Palestine” t-shirts (which I’m sure the PA and Hamas were grateful for considering the shirts Arabic dedication to Allah), and pass out his Holocaust-denying “Marching to Zion” DVDs, you are not there to win anyone to Christ, but to cause hatred and violence toward Jewish people.  Anderson even admits the potential for violent reactions by warning his followers that “wearing this shirt will protect you while we’re in Dearborn”. So obviously Anderson knew there was a potential for violent reactions, so certainly he is well aware of the kind of response his DVDs would provoke from the same community against Jews.

What is strangely ironic about this is that while Anderson agrees with Iran, that Israel should be wiped off the map and our history rejected as well as our right to live and exist in Israel, he supports the fictional state of “Palestine” that has NEVER had a state in Israel. While Anderson claims that Israel was not a nation brought forth again in 1948, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (now PA or, “Palestinian Authority”) had no “Palestinians” until 1964. Palestine was/is a LATIN term used by Romans to ridicule JEWS after the Romans sacked Jerusalem under Titus in AD 70 with the final ousting of Jews from Jerusalem around AD 100. Palestine is a form of the word “Philistine” of which Israel has a history of conflict with (Goliath was a Philistine whom David slew). Philistine was used as a pejorative term for Jews. Thus, the ORIGINAL “Palestinians” were actually EXILED JEWS, not ARABS from surrounding Arabic countries. So while Anderson attempts to disassociate modern Jews from Israel as legitimate occupiers, he adopts a mantra based on a nation of fiction. There has never been a state, or religion called “Palestine”. Even Hamas officials admission of this fact.

Israel was a desolate land that didn’t even bear fruit or trees until the Jews came back to the land. It is therefore quite humorous to see Anderson show his support for some fictional state that never took care of the land, and never made any claims to the land until many years after Israel’s reoccupation of the land as a nation. See our article on prophecies fulfilled by modern Israel.

Hal Lindsey has thoroughly demonstrated how that anti-Jewish theology such as Replacement Theology, and more recently Theonomy (another rehashed version of Christian Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology), are indirectly, and often directly responsible for the violence that Jews have experienced throughout history (See The Road To Holocaust and ignore the idiotic rants from the DeMar crowds). Even the Aryan Brotherhood likes Anderson’s literature. Steven Anderson is antidispensational, anti-Jewish, and adheres to the same Old Testament theocratic concepts of the modern-day theonomists, so while not outright admitting that he is in fact, a theonomist, or a Roman Catholic Dominionist, his theology is crystal clear that that is exactly what he teaches (with a few hints of Herbert Armstrong’s British Israelite arguments against the established nation of Israel). Anderson is certainly familiar with the violent history against Jews by those who have adopted these theologies (Hitler quoted Martin Luther’s antiSemitic sentiments as justification for persecuting Jews), and it can not be ignored that he must have had this in mind when spreading his propaganda in Dearborn to a hostile Muslim community.

ANDERSON’S MOTIVES

We haven’t quite gotten to the bottom of his motives for promoting his racist theology, but we do note that Anderson’s father was lead to Christ by Roland Rasmussen (anti pre tribulation and known for his mid-tribulation theology), and that he married a German lady who he’d led to Christ (supposedly) on their way to Reno for a shotgun wedding. Now we are certainly glad that Anderson chose to marry a woman “in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39), but when you put a woman on the spot and tell her “Look, I love you but I can’t marry you unless you are a Christian. So before we go to Reno, you’re going to have to pray this prayer so we can get married”, I’d have to really question the authenticity of not only your marriage but both of your conversions (hers based on that experience, and his based on the belief that such a conversion is a bona fide way to witness by pressuring someone into believing in Christ: considering that she’d flown from Germany to the U.S. to marry him, what was she supposed to say?). We haven’t quite connected the dots between his connection with Germany and his anti-Semitic views, but eventually we will find it if there’s even the slightest connection.

WHO SENT ANDERSON?

That’s not the only anomaly within the history of Andersonism. Anderson is a renegade pastor with no sending church which is quite uncommon among IFB churches. Baptists have long held that there is a succession of independent churches that can be traced all the way back to the churches in Jerusalem, and although there can not be traced an absolute unbroken line (contrary to some Landmarkists), part of the way we preserve the integrity of that line is by ordaining pastors. Trying to maintain churches that are sent out from the authority of other Bible believing churches is one of the ways to prevent the infiltration of heretics. Now of course, the church is sort of “chartered” under the authority of another church, but once established is fully independent. This never occurred with Anderson as far as we know. We do know that he was supposedly sent from a Baptist church in Sacramento, California, but we have never been able to confirm that Anderson was ever sent out from their church.

ANDERSON’S ASSOCIATIONS

Anderson has also employed the services of Paul Wittenberger in the production of his videos, including the most recent antiSemitic “Marching to Zion” film. Paul Wittenberg has helped in the production of some of the most ungodly entertainment known to man, including the production of LESBIAN ORIENTED MOVIES.

Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a feminist, lesbian-related comedy film directed by Jamie Babbit. It was released on September 28, 2007

Itty Bitty Titty Committee is a feminist, lesbian-related comedy film directed by Jamie Babbit. It was released on September 28, 2007

Now we certainly agree that homosexuality is godless, wicked, sinful, and will be judged by God along with the nations that sanction it, but isn’t it just a bit odd to advocate for the murder of homosexuals while your production artist helps produce gay movies? 

One wonders just how much money his church members and other supporters inadvertently (or perhaps even blatantly) gave to Islamic terrorist networks upon the purchase of their “Free Palestine” t-shirts for their “witnessing” mission to Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan.  You have to have the discernment of a 12-year-old space cadet to follow this cultic charlatan, and rumor has it that Dr. Sam Gipp has produced a new video that actually demonstrates Steven Anderson is in fact, stuck on 12.

anderson17 - Copy

________________________________

See our article on “Not All Israel Are Of Israel?” establishing the validity of modern-day Israel and her role in future prophecy, and our most recent article on Andersonism Theology debunking his view of the 144,000 Jews of Revelation 7, which addresses quite a bit more than the 144,000 demonstrating the utter fallacious nature of his methods of Biblical interpretation.  And our article refuting “After the Tribulation” with a  little bit more commentary on some of his other odd mannerisms.

See also Dr. Michael Brown’s “Is Israel An Evil Occupier?

UPDATE: Anderson’s followers have blocked us on almost every social media outlet they they are located, and have even accused us of supporting homosexuality because we disagree with executing sodomites. Please look to the left of the website and see our recent articles on “gay” marriage for proof of what complete idiots Anderson’s followers are. This is Westboro “Baptist” Church logic: if you don’t kowtow to their definition of perverts, you are therefore a pervert supporter.