I think we actually learned some things from the interesting case of NBA player Jason Collins. I can’t think of anything good that we learned, but it was hardly surprising the way things are going. And just to think, a President who could not recollect simple facts eight months later about a terrorist attack and four dead Americans in Benghazi, Libya, took time out of his obviously not so busy day to call Collins for announcing something as inconsequential and boring as this man’s sexual preference. As always, however, there is more to the story. We find out that Jason Collins was dating a woman for eight years to whom he had become engaged. But he couldn’t bring himself to tell this woman who had put her hopes and dreams in him the truth about himself. He lived a lie and wasted many precious years of this woman’s time, but of course once the media and the President fell all over themselves to celebrate his sexuality, we didn’t hear a peep about his questionable character traits.

Our first lesson we learned is that the LGBT lobby and the media have somehow decided that being gay is not about equal rights, but about being a protected class that is beyond scrutiny. Had this been a heterosexual man who was engaged to a woman but out philandering with other women having made a lifelong commitment to his fiancée, society would still heap some degree of derision and scorn on this man (unless, of course, he happened to be a famous liberal, but I digress). Yet because this man is gay he is “courageous’ and “a hero” for “coming out” about his sexuality having nothing to do with his other (not so courageous) human qualities, and at the same time it is absolutely fine and not further news for him to cheat on his former fiancée, even though he exposes her to the risk of HIV based on his chosen lifestyle. If that’s not a double standard, I don’t know what is.

I think the second lesson we continue to learn is that the media’s continued clarion call for “tolerance” is totally fake and phony. It’s not about tolerance. It is about foisting a worldview on you such that if you don’t accept their view, then you are a bigot or homophobe. My understanding of tolerance is that both sides will be respectful of the other’s views and will accept that people can simply disagree on moral matters. That’s not how the media or LGBT lobby see it. Their morality counts, and yours doesn’t. Their morality is correct, and yours is false. Even though you are not discriminating against anyone, treating both gay and straight people with dignity and respect, but simply believe homosexuality is morally wrong, you are still told that you don’t believe in “gay rights.” Well I, and I believe you reading this, don’t distinguish between “gay” and “straight” rights.

The few natural rights we have are afforded to all people, both homosexual and heterosexual with no distinction other than the obvious case that marriage is afforded to the heterosexual couple for obvious reasons (hint, they can naturally procreate). And just as someone who believes premarital sex is morally wrong is not discriminating against heterosexual people and denying their “heterosexual rights,” someone who believes that homosexual sex is morally wrong is not discriminating against gay people either. It is just common sense, but the media and the LGBT lobby aren’t operating within the bounds of common sense or fairness. They have an agenda and a platform, and if making false accusations allows them to accomplish the ends they seek, so be it. I think that is the greatest tragedy. Here we have people crying out for “tolerance” (where there is no intolerance), yet they refuse to be truthful and, further, extend the very thing to others that they seek from them.

So today NBA basketball player Jason Collins became the first active male player in American professional sports to come out as gay. Media people were tripping over themselves calling his move courageous, strong, and some identified him as a leader. Some are even calling it historical. Well it’s not courageous, it doesn’t make him a “leader,” and it isn’t even historical because it’s not news and I don’t think anyone other than the media really cares. I certainly don’t because his sex life is his business, not mine. I recall when Anderson Cooper “came out” as if his being gay were some deep dark secret that he had to keep to himself. Well when he did, no one was surprised and no one gave a damn other than the media and some celebrities. There is simply nothing special nor newsworthy about being gay. It’s about as newsworthy as one of Collins’ heterosexual teammates coming out and saying “I’m sleeping with lots of women out of wedlock!” In our society, being gay is nothing of consequence. Gays are not discriminated against in any manner and live their lives just like anyone else. So all I think we learned today is just how puerile the mainstream media is. They have this juvenile fascination with sex just like kids who finally discover their sex organs have some purpose other than relieving themselves in the bathroom. And that just shows you how inane and vacuous is the thought in the media today. They’re more concerned about Obama’s six-pack and Jason Collins sexuality than they are about what happened in Benghazi or why our economy continues to stay stubbornly stuck with high unemployment, record numbers of people on food stamps, and a record number of people on public assistance. The fact that these things aren’t news to the media shows you where their priorities lie.

Its hard for me to understand why the media is so focused and obsessed on everything sexual. They always like to talk about how conservatives are repressed and want to get into people’s bedrooms, yet they are always the ones to bring the subject of sex up, create phony campaigns such as the Republican “war on women,” and clamor for free birth control from the very government they want to stay outside the bedroom (except for when they want the government to enter the bedroom, so go and figure that logic). It is the liberal media that is always chasing around celebrities, digging into their private lives so they can sell the “latest” scoop on who drop kicked who or who slept with who or who is gay, lesbian, or gender confused. Sober adults who are not repressed don’t share in such idiotic and empty-headed pursuits because they just don’t feel other people’s sex lives are any of their business or even should be their business. But back to Collins, I sure hope he doesn’t feel the liberal media has done him any favors. He’s the story of the day and they will move on to the next “sensational” story that will be just as dull unimportant as this one. Mature people don’t care and only wish the best for Collins regardless his sexuality. As a Christian, my concern is for Jason Collins’ soul, and I hope this newly found notoriety does not cause him to further stumble because the media has become his cheerleader. If he is a Christian, then he knows that the Bible is abundantly clear on homosexuality and that practicing such a lifestyle is wrong. It is certainly not a heinous sin, but is on par with promiscuous lifestyles and adultery. Yet it is sin nonetheless, and Collins would best deal with his sin as the rest of us must contend with our own. If he follows the lead of the liberal media in terms of what they find praiseworthy then he has, sadly, been truly deceived.

The Wall Street Journal had an insightful editorial this weekend by Sohrab Ahmari titled Leon Kass: The Meaning of the Gosnell Trial. What Kass has brilliantly put his finger on is the degradation in our culture that has become disrespectful of dignity and indifferent to degradation. Just think about what you see on the major networks these days. Do you see much that is uplifting, inspiring, and dignified? I would argue no. Most of what you see tawdry, lowbrow, and baseless, all crammed down your throat persistently in an attempt to make you believe if you aren’t with the program that the cultural elites think you should be with you’re backwards and living in the past, when all you’re trying to do is preserve what’s good and dignified about our culture. The piece makes a great point about abortion. The Democratic Party dropped the “safe, legal, and rare” language from its platform (and remember they removed the last reference to God before forcing it back in again against the wishes of the voting delegates). Democrats no longer see children as a gift, but a product of personal reproductive choice. Thus, human choice is now the basis of all value. How sad. Kass argues that even though nascent life prior to birth does not yet display grand and glorious things for which we applaud humanity, it is the dignity of human possibility that is to be found in nascent life and thus we should not treat it less well than it deserves.

When Kass was in graduate school, he spent part of the summer of 1965 doing civil rights work, and noticed that the unschooled black farmer he and his wife lived with who had no toilet or indoor plumbing had more honor, goodness, and decency than he found in his fellow graduate students at Harvard, who were so “enlightened and liberal.” The difference was that his black hosts displayed the dignity of honest work and religion, things that were not highly valued by his peers. How sad. What Kass has discovered, and as I have discovered in my studies over the past few years (which will culminate this May with a Master of Arts in Philosophy of Religion & Ethics), is that all of the high-minded pursuits in the academy that promise us better health, peace of mind, and conquest of nature, contain within them the seeds of our own degradation. The trouble is not so much with science, but with scientism, which is a quasi-religious faith that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge worthy of the name, that scientific knowledge gives you an exhaustive account of the way things are, and that science will transcend all the limitations of our human condition. In doing so, one of its primary goals is to put the final nail in the rule of revealed religion. The academy is made up of secular humanists, and their goal is to crank out secular humanists who place no importance on the special place of the human being, of the importance of the soul, or of inwardness and purposiveness. With this being the direction of our country, do you expect more or less of people with the mentality Gosnell? I would argue you will only get more. And for your consideration, the current President of the United States went out of his way as a state senator to become committee chair and kill the proposed born-alive infant act, which ends as follows: “A live child born as a result of an  abortion  shall be  fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” This same bill went on to become federal law.

The idea that materialism, continues Kass, can cure men of the fear of God and the fear death, is at least as old as ancient Greece. And he is correct. There is nothing new under the sun. The Sophists were arguing the same thing every liberal Democrat is arguing today. Their views failed then to build strong, flourishing societies, have destroyed countless others, but even today people foolishly push these views at the peril of any society that adopts them en masse. He mentions Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who is highly influential yet teaches ideas that are insidious to human flourishing. I wonder if he knows just how much damage he is causing because I don’t believe he lives in his own life what he teaches. Pinker questions the value of dignity as a moral guide, because he is a pure Darwinian naturalist who believes everything is physical, there is no God, and that human consciousness is just a trick of evolution. We don’t even have free will, according to Pinker and his ilk, because each and every event can be “reduced” to microphysical particulars, properties, relations and laws of physics. Everything we do is completely driven by the antecedent moment going back to the beginning of the universe. To say that the human experience, which includes such a range of love, laughter, sadness, and other great emotions is nothing more than events measured in the brain based on peptide levels in the hypothalamus completely misses what it means to be human. How sad.

Indeed, what I want to demonstrate is that life is rich, thick, and robust because that is reality. It is not materialistic, and cannot be reduced to physics. The physical is not all that exists, and when you have studied philosophy and science as I have, you see over time that science cannot and never will explain human experience because it is beyond what science is capable of discovering. There is more to life than the physical. Our feelings, emotions, and particularly love for others is not physical, and we are not slaves to antecedent events as cognizing agents with the ability to choose right from wrong, or to choose dignity over degradation. If we keep listening to the Sophists at the universities, and their enablers in the Democratic Party, we will surely come to ruin, sooner than later. What they sell you is a utopia. What they deliver is misery because they do not understand human nature. They don’t understand that the reason people are religious is because the divine has been placed inside the heart of every man and woman, and it is their responsibility to respond to the divine or reject it and rebel against it. Like Gosnell and the Brothers Tsarnaev, we see that people do have free will, and that they will be held accountable for their actions because we are still a people who believe in right and wrong, good and bad, and it is not cultural conditioning, but simply a natural condition of the heart. God has placed all of the complexity between our ears that are needed to know that he is real, and you don’t need a Masters degree or a Ph.D. to figure that out. In all my learning, that was the most important thing that I have learned.

I read, with great interest, Bret Stephens’ recent article “A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” With all due respect to Mr. Stephens, I think this represents the laziest, sloppiest thinking today that somehow passes for journalism, particularly “conservative” journalism. In truth, there is no “conservative” case for gay marriage. A conservative might make a case for gay marriage, but it isn’t in keeping with conservative principles. The argument would be a personal or emotional one that just happens to be argued by a conservative who should know better. Now that I have made such a charge, allow me to explain. In Russell Kirk’s far-reaching classic, The Conservative Mind, he outlines six definitive canons of conservative thought. The first is the belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. The second is a conviction that ultimate equality is in the judgment of God and before courts of law, but not equality of condition because there will be natural orders and classes in any society (i.e. equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome). Stephens violates both of these convictions handily.

Natural law tells us that marriage, which is pre-political, is wholly based in human nature and is ordained by God. Man and woman are designed in a specific, complementary way with a special connection for the bearing and raising of children. This is a key distinctive of marriage, and as long as this is a key distinction, it doesn’t matter whether a couple actually can or can’t have children. It is their unique ability to make children and also provide the proper and healthiest environment for raising children. Cultures have recognized this over millennia, but suddenly cultural elites working with activist groups in both Europe and America are falling all over themselves to redefine a simple, ages-old institution by calling it inherently discriminatory because others feel “left out.” Well if the traditional definition of marriage is inherently discriminatory, then please tell me what definition is not? If marriage is determined to be discriminatory, then it will open the floodgates to challenge virtually any other definition that a vocal enough group of people don’t like. Even Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor recognized that simple fact. What Stephens demonstrates is that he and other cultural elites have little respect for the unique qualities of the institution. And that is the real shame. One does not have to devalue the institution of marriage in order to provide civil recognition to another who feels slighted.

Stephens mistakenly argues that those who are against same-sex marriage (or more accurately, for traditional marriage) are worried about a slippery slope. He couldn’t be more wrong. There is no slippery slope. It is logically inconsistent to say that traditional marriage is discriminatory but to extend marriage only to same-sex couples is not discriminatory. If marriage is going to be extended to one form of loving committed relationships, then it needs to be extended to all forms of loving committed relationships, and that would include polygamous or incestuous relationships amongst consenting adults. And this notion of saying that the call for same-sex marriage is about “marriage equality” is the most disingenuous of the entire debate. To have equality, you need to have two things that are similarly situated. Same-sex couples are not the same as opposite sex couples, cannot have children naturally, and do not provide the optimal environment for raising children as all comprehensive studies have indicated. The intact biological family has always been and still is the optimal environment for children. So removing children from the equation and then attaching the “equality” label by using “loving and committed” as the only criteria for marriage sets the bar for “equality” dangerously low.

A reasonable conservative argument would be to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, but in the interest of maximum liberty, argue for consenting adults of any number and/or sex to create arrangements under contract law that allow for civil equivalents such as right to survivorship, joint tenancy, and power of attorney. There is no reason the definition of marriage must be changed, unless the express purpose is to put a final nail in the coffin of Judeo-Christian values, which is the true victim in this debate. In Denmark, the church is now forced to conduct same-sex marriages even if that church objects to such unions, and the state of Colorado passed a gay civil union bill that intentionally left out a religious exemption for faith groups that object to recognizing gay unions, arguing that there is no room in the public square for those who hold religious beliefs that object to same-sex marriage. So much for tolerance, as we can see that we’re heading towards it running only one way, where those who are simply following their Christian faith will no longer be seen as citizens. I don’t understand how conservatives could throw in for that, but as I stated in the outset, there is far too much sloppy thinking attempting to pass itself off as conservative thought these days.

Here I am writing another post defending marriage. There is so much more to be said because the debate over same-sex marriage has practically no intellectual weight to it on either side. The side for same-sex marriage is purely emotional, and will answer any pressing question with an insult that the person opposed is a bigot or is homophobic. That is hardly the way to defend any position, but these days it seems to be effective to just call people names and shut down debate. Well let me say that the reason I am writing about this topic again is because I want to. I don’t care what anyone else thinks about what I write about. If they don’t like what I write, they don’t have to read it. As long as this is a free country and I have breath, I will write, thank God. Now some have charged that I write about defending marriage because I have a dislike of gays. Actually, it is the opposite. I write about defending marriage because of my love for gays. Christ loved gays, and so do I. But Christ, since he was the Son of God, who is co-eternal with the father, did not condone homosexuality prior to his time on earth (when he was alive in spirit with God), during his earthly ministry, and as far as I know after his ascension 2000 years ago he hasn’t changed his position. If someone does hear from him and I don’t then please give up the 411!

How any Christian could be supportive of homosexuality, let alone same-sex marriage, shows one thing: they don’t truly believe the Bible. Moreover, it demonstrates that they don’t truly care about gays either. If the Bible is clear about its position on homosexuality, why on earth would any Christian put the eternal soul of someone who is gay in jeopardy by telling them they can willfully live a life of sin and if God were here today he would give his blessing? My heart so aches for someone who calls themselves a Christian but  would willfully deceive a precious person who is gay about God’s word. With Christian friends like that, no one who is gay needs any enemies. Yes, I know my Christian “friend” will say “God is love” and someone who is gay was “born that way,” so if God created them that way then it must not be a sin. But then what would that Christian say about any other type of sin, particularly the sins they may have been born with? Can a Christian pick and choose what is a sin or not based on what the current culture feels about what is sin/right/wrong? If a Christian can pick and choose then they don’t need the Bible, and they don’t need Christ because if sin is culture-bound then it is culture that defines it. Christ is extraneous at best and nothing more than a man as opposed to a risen savior that lives today.

On the Sean Hannity program a couple of weeks ago, there was a black, pro same-sex marriage pastor named Oliver White. White said that God intended there to be same-sex marriage, and that this was a position to which he had “evolved” towards (I presume in a similar manner to President Obama and Hillary Clinton) due to his dealings with gays at his church. So instead of him, the pastor, teaching what the Bible had to say on homosexuality, he allowed gays and supporters of same-sex marriage to tell him what they think the Bible should say. And of course, he lovingly complied. Below are three quotes from White during his time on the Hannity program:

1. ­When asked if he disagreed with Christ on homosexuality, White stated:  “I don’t disagree with Jesus Christ, …but if Jesus were alive today, he would be more inclined to say, ‘you know, I didn’t know it all…”
2. When asked why he accepts homosexuality against biblical teaching, White had this to say: “I believe that the Jesus who also said ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ would not discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation.”
3. When challenged if someone should have to be married to have sex, White said: “Let’s take sex outside of marriage. If that be the case… if that was totally wrong then 99% of us are wrong because most of us have sex outside of marriage.”

Let me take these three statements in turn. First, White stated “if Jesus were alive today.” Now if Jesus were not alive today, then the entire gospel is false because if Jesus did not raise from the dead and continues to live, then the gospel little more than a sham. Even though the Bible is obviously not authoritative to the Reverend White, this is what it actually says:

¹²Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:12-19 ESV)

So even the Bible says that if Christ did not raise from the dead, then the whole Christian enterprise is, indeed, a pathetic one. And what precisely does White mean when he says Christ “didn’t know it all”? If Christ didn’t “know it all,” then he certainly was not God and nothing more than a man. So I think we’re beginning to see that White really doesn’t believe the Bible, even though he does personally agree with some of its teachings, most notably about loving others as one would love himself as we see in the second quote above.  White has determined that if Jesus would say you should love your neighbor as yourself, then he would not “discriminate” against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. So exactly who is White to determine what Jesus would or would not say? And if Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but we can, like White, cherry pick what we believe is sin, then why did Jesus die a heinous death on a cross to begin with? There is no reason to pay a penalty for sin unless there actually is sin, and if sin is little more than what you decide is sin, then I have no idea why we would even bother with the gospel or even accept Christ’s worthless “penalty” on a cross. And now to White’s third point. It seems if everyone is committing a certain sin, then it is no longer wrong because everyone is committing it. So Christ is not the authority here but, again, sin is culturally bound and takes precedence over both Christ and the Bible. Sorry, but I am completely confused now. It must be the homophobia in me causing me to be irrational and miss White’s logic.

The point I’m trying to make in this post is that Christians cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you worship a risen savior (not a dead one) and that you are under his authority, yet you get to decide what is sin and what is not. Either you are under the authority of the Bible or you aren’t, as we see clearly with the Reverend White that he is not. White gets to interpret Scripture any way he wants to, and so can you. So in essence, he gets to make God in his own image, and you get to make God in your own image too. Well not so fast. If that is the case, then if God is anything like any man or woman walking on this earth, then God is not God because he can’t possibly be a construction of our own flawed and sinful thinking. I am a Christian because I believe the history of the Bible, and I believe the testimony as to the life of Christ, his death, and his resurrection as historical fact. Thus, Christ sets the objective standard of morality and I am subject to obedience to him. I am so glad Christ is not like me, and I have no desire that he conform to my standards. And neither should you. If you don’t want to conform to the teachings of Christ, then please, please, renounce Christianity. It will be far better for you to renounce Christianity than to continue in Christianity and manipulate its teachings to suit your own personal ends. You are certainly not doing gays a good service, and are only leading them down a false path. If you truly love gays, you will tell them that just like everyone else, they must deal with their own sin as you have to deal with yours. You will not be out there telling them homosexuality is not a sin and that they deserve to be able to marry. That is not Christian and puts even your own soul in jeopardy.

More to come soon…

I recently read a Huffington Post article titled 6 Things Christians Should Stop Saying, written by the self-described “Author, Speaker, Thought Leader, and Spiritual Teacher,” Steve McSwain. I must say that for someone with so many titles I am completely underwhelmed. How someone who is supposedly so learned can be so ignorant of Christianity is quite risible. I have always heard it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This man has eclipsed that by displaying his utter stupidity and unrighteous contempt for all to see in the printed word. Now we know that the Bible is not based on anything mystical, but it is true, documented history of a people who just happen to be celebrating Passover this week as they have for 3300 years, and a man who we know factually was crucified on the cross 2000 years ago just as we knew there was a Caesar of Augustus at that time. Now I understand how non-Christians may believe Jesus did not raise from the dead, and I have no problem with that because it is entirely possible he didn’t. But the testimony has been demonstrated to be trustworthy over the past two millennia, so it is at least reasonable to say that belief in Christ is warranted even if it cannot be exhaustively proved (and if you believe there are things that can be exhaustively proved, then I would challenge you to prove what you had for breakfast this morning  exhaustively, as the only thing you can know exhaustively is what you are thinking this very instant).

Now if I have accepted Christianity based on reliable testimony, what can I do but accept what the Bible says? Am I supposed to impose my own interpretation on the Bible, or read it for what the author originally intended? If this McSwain, who calls himself a Christian, doesn’t believe what the Bible says or that it can be interpreted properly, then why does he believe that we can properly interpret his writing? Wouldn’t the same thing apply to this bombastic piece of so-called journalism? As a self-proclaimed Christian, he is misleading many people so I would hate that to be his legacy when he goes to meet St. Peter. I will take each point below and respond briefly, as I don’t want to spend too much time on this nut case, as follows:

• Point #1: If he doesn’t believe the Bible is infallible, then there really is no point in being a Christian because if Christ cannot ensure his words are accurately transmitted through the generations then we could hardly believe he raised from the dead. If you can’t trust parts of it, then you can’t trust any of it. It just doesn’t make sense and the only course of action is to look for some other explanation of how we got here and what it means to be a human person. Regarding the successful transmission of the authors’ ideas, we have literally thousands of partial texts and hundreds of complete texts dating back to the 100s. With that many copies and variation of no more than 0.5% across them all makes the Bible an astounding historical document without peer.
• Point #2: Why does he expect the Bible to be interpreted any differently from any other book? The Bible is a book of written history that is to be interpreted like any other book, and is a book with a number of genres such as poetry, apocalyptic, the gospels, wisdom, and the law. So you don’t interpret wisdom in the same way you interpret law, and you don’t interpret poetry the same as the gospels. The fact that this escapes this man is beyond me.
• Point #3: It is just utter foolishness to indicate that Christ indicated anything other than he as being the only way to heaven. Christ is clear on this, and so were his disciples. There is no interpretive “issue” here, or alternative reading. If McSwain cannot accept that the Bible says the only way to salvation is through Christ, since it was he that died on the cross for our sins, then McSwain should just ditch Christianity since he doesn’t believe what it clearly says. There is no crime in doing this, and shoehorning his personal views into biblical interpretation is one of the worst things any Christian can do. I think there is a special hell for people who do that because it is wholly dishonest and disingenuous.
• Point #4: The Bible is clear that no man knows the hour of Christ’s return, not even Lindsey or LaHaye. Christians are not automatons, so they don’t believe the Lindsey/LaHaye books just because they’re on printed paper. No sober Christian is out there predicting when Jesus comes. Perhaps this guy hangs out with Christians that are as dumb and uninformed as he is. For the average Christian, there is absolutely nothing wrong with waiting expectantly for Christ’s return knowing that there is no telling for sure when this will happen.
• Point #5: The Bible is clear on homosexuality. Again, it isn’t even debatable. My assertion is that we all struggle with sins of some sort and no one is immune from sin. For example, I have always struggled with anxiety. I was “born that way” because it was present in my earliest childhood behavior. Does that mean I should go around asking everyone to change because I tend to hurry things? Or should I learn to temper that tendency and be more patient and sober? I would argue the latter. Homosexuals are sinners like everyone else, so why this man thinks they should be treated special is being highly presumptuous and selfish. They have to deal with their sin, I have to deal with mine, and McSwain has to deal with his (which includes his animus towards fellow Christians). I am not going to encourage behavior that the Bible says is wrong and if it is lived as a lifestyle threatens a person’s very soul. That is spiritual malpractice. Christians who promote homosexuality are doing homosexuals no favors, and will be held to an ever greater account for teaching obvious falsehood when they reach the pearly gates (presuming they do after behavior that is anything but Christian).
• Point #6: Some Christians believe in a young earth, and some believe in an old earth. But this has NOTHING to do with salvation, and if this is something he wants to nitpick about, then the man really has way too much time on his hands. I believe in an old earth, but I will not disparage those who believe in a young earth. I will respectfully disagree and that’s it. Only a fool makes this a criticism of a Christian.

Finally, just look at how he ends his article on love. Did you see much love displayed in his article? I didn’t see any. I saw Christians, of whom he counts himself in the number, mocked, derided, and made out be bigots who are no more than Bible-thumping idiots simply for believing the same Bible as he. Hardly any love in that. Also, lest this fool forgot, since he says he is a Christian, Christ is co-eternal with God. So what God has done, Christ has done. And if Christ has not come back to change his views after 2000 years, then you can best believe he hasn’t changed them despite what McSwain and people of his ilk try to shove off on unsuspecting, low-information Christians. And as far as I know, God is not only a God of love but he is also a God of judgment. That’s why Christ died on a cross for our sins because God demanded a penalty for our sins. Christ paid the ultimate price unto eternity, and for that we should be most grateful. Of course, that small point seems lost on this fool as well. My recommendation is that he refrain from writing articles about subjects that are not within his domain of knowledge. He is someone that needs to first learn what Christianity is, and only then should he make judgments about what Christians should or should not do.

Anyway, Shalom, and Happy Easter. Don’t let people like McSwain who crawl out from under a rock spreading doubt every year at Easter discourage you.

Christ has risen!

This is a follow up post to my last post asking if Jesus was accepting of homosexuality, where I argued in the negative. But of course, that does not mean Jesus did not love homosexuals. The issue has always been with sin, whether it be homosexual sin or any other type of sin, and that is why Christ died on the cross. There was no reason to die on a cross if there was no penalty to be paid for sin. So to even suggest that Jesus had no problem with homosexuality is tantamount to saying he died on the cross for no good reason. Now there was a lively Facebook discussion regarding my last post, and in this post I want to respond to three key criticisms I received in order to clarify my position and demonstrate what I believe is wrong with those criticisms. The first line of attack was that I was “singling out” homosexuals. I am guilty of that because when you pick any topic to write on you are singling out something. Otherwise, what is the point of writing if you don’t have any particular topic? But perhaps the criticism is that I’m going out of my way to pick on homosexuals. Well, I can say with certainty that I’m not picking on anyone because I write on many topics. I write on homosexuality specifically out of my love for homosexuals and their souls. As I stated in the last post, homosexuals need Christ too. There is no reason their sin should be favored over any other sin, and what I see often in the media and now society is the view that homosexuality is not only not a sin, but it is a good thing to be celebrated. I expect this from non-Christians, but to see  Christians taking the same line of thought is surprising because they know what the Bible says on this subject and should know better. The church can love and welcome homosexuals without providing them a free pass on their sin that is not afforded to people who have other sins in their life.

The second line of argument in the discussion was about interpretation of the Bible. A friend claimed that when it came to homosexuality in the Bible, it was only proscribed as a sin if associated with violence or gang rape. If we look at Leviticus 18:19-23 in the Old Testament, we see the following:

19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. 20 You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. 21 You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

Notice that homosexuality is not the only sin discussed in this passage, and there is no violence or gang rape involved. Let’s look at another passage in Leviticus 20:10-16:

10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. 15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal. 16 If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

I don’t see anything there that has to do with violence or gang rape either. Again, homosexuality is not singled out as being any different or more worthy of condemnation than other sexual sins. Let’s now look in the New Testament at Romans 1:24-27:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [a]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [b]forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [c]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [d]indecent acts and receiving in [e]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

This is a central passage that addresses homosexuality.  It is set in the context of the condemnation of those who reject God as revealed in creation or through the natural law. It is part of Paul’s broader argument for the universality of sin and judgment, setting the need for the believer to be justified by faith in Christ’s atoning death on the cross, as outlined in Romans 4-5. Those who reject the available knowledge of God and choose instead to worship the Greek and Roman idols have lifestyle consequences that they cannot avoid.  One of these consequences is homosexual behavior. Because of the reality of sin, every person has the potential for homosexuality in the same way that we have the potential for any other kind of sin that the Bible describes. The phrase “natural relations with women” makes it clear that the natural sexual relationship is heterosexual and objective, and thus is not dependent on a person’s individual orientation. Let’s now look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

As in Leviticus, homosexuality is not singled out as being any different or more worthy of condemnation than other sexual sins. And it has nothing to do with violence or gang rape. So my friend was wrong, but then tried to turn my attention to various ways that the Old and New Testaments might be interpreted. I wouldn’t even argue that point because what we have in the major translations of the Bible is outstanding hermeneutical scholarship that has stood the test of time since the first canon of scripture was established in the fourth century A.D. For the past 1600 years since, Bible scholars have had access to this canon and the original scriptures with some dating back to the second century. Yes, there are many passages that are difficult to interpret, particularly the apocalyptic genre. But on the subject of homosexuality as it relates to law and gospel, there is no dispute. It is what it is and people will try to find all sorts of ways to interpret whatever they want from the Bible, and that is a huge shame. I would rather someone just say they don’t believe the Bible rather than to attempt to bastardize it to fit their own personal views as if God is supposed to think they way do. Well God doesn’t think like us, and he is not the same substance as we are.

The third line of attack was, I felt, particularly troublesome, which has a two-pronged approach. It is the defense of a friend or relative who happens to be homosexual and a Christian. The argument was first, who am I to judge someone who has accepted Christ and is living the Christian lifestyle but they just happen to be homosexual, and second, the reason homosexuals are pushed away from the church because the church is not accepting of their sin, which can’t be good for the homosexual. My response to the first prong is that it is not my job to pass judgment on homosexual sin or any other type of sin that people may commit in terms of their status as Christians. I’m a sinner myself, and I have my own struggles with sin, so I’m hardly one to pass judgment on others. Yet with me being a sinner, I know that I have to deal with my own sin. So if I’m going to deal with my sin, then a homosexual has to deal with their sin too. But then again, they are asking for a pass while I don’t get a pass. So I’m basically treating homosexuals equally when it comes to the matter of sin, and I think they should honor that. So if I know someone who is a Christian and practicing a homosexual lifestyle, or a heterosexual lifestyle of fornication with no intent on marriage, or adultery, I will not pass judgment on them, but I will most certainly call attention to their lifestyle and the commitment they have made to Christ. I personally do not believe that a person who is truly saved will willfully and continually practice a lifestyle that is contrary to their Christian faith. Being a Christian witness means something, so it’s better to just not be a Christian rather than to claim to be a Christian and not live a Christian life.

As to the second prong, I can understand why many homosexuals refuse to accept Christianity, or for those who do, avoid church. Refusing to accept Christianity because of what it teaches about homosexuality is folly. There is no one who joins the church living a sin-free life. Being sin free is not a part of the human condition. So avoiding church because one is a homosexual is just that: avoidance of coming to grips with your own sin and dealing with it like everyone else deals with their sin. A homosexual will be right at home in any church with sinners just like themselves. Now I know there are some churches that frown on allowing homosexuals to become a part of their church out of fear that they will ultimately want to have the church accept them being in a homosexual relationship, and even marry them. Additionally, there may be fear of any type of influence homosexuals may have on the children. Well these churches need to wake up, because homosexuality is nothing new and it is not any different from a church allowing a heterosexual couple attend that is unmarried and shacking up together. Now in the case of the heterosexual couple, they can marry according to the Bible, whereas the homosexual couple cannot if the Bible is properly interpreted. So my point is that the church should be accepting of all, but it cannot compromise its teachings in order to appease any group of people, lest it cease to be salt and light in the world. And homosexuals should not expect a church to compromise its teachings to appease them. It’s not good for them, and it is certainly not good for the church. The moment you begin to attempt to change the meaning of scripture, it ceases to have any authority, and Christianity just becomes a free for all that has lost its rooting and foundation in objective truth. So when we compromise the word of God, we compromise the truth and we lose sight of why Christ died on the cross, which was not only for homosexual sin but for all other sins that we all commit each and every day, each and every hour, as well.

A friend of mine emailed me a couple of days ago about non-Christians and even professing Christians justifying homosexuality by citing that since Jesus didn’t speak about homosexuality, then it must be an acceptable practice. I can hardly think of logic that is dumber than this. Jesus didn’t talk about heroin or crack cocaine either, so by that logic let’s all get ripped! First, while I think the non-Christian is expressing their ignorance of Scripture, it is far worse for an actual professing Christian to propose this way of thinking. Any Christian who has a basic understanding of the faith has accepted that Christ is their savior, and that he is one person of the Trinity along with God and the Holy Spirit. So when Moses was giving the law in the Old Testament that came from God proscribing homosexual practices, then it came from Christ too.  Christ is co-eternal and one with God, so he was not non-existent or vacationing while his evil cohort was laying down the law. In the New Testament, Paul, as an apostle of God, continued in his writings that homosexuality was indeed a sin before God, just as adultery and fornication are. Interesting that we don’t see adulterers or fornicators running around asking people to ignore their particular sins because they’re special, while gay activists seem to think that when it comes to sin it only applies to other people and not themselves, namely those who don’t agree with their views. Now isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. To my question, Jesus was not accepting of homosexuality any more than he was accepting of the woman at the well who lived a sexually immoral life (John 4:1-42). Jesus lovingly meet her at her point of need and brought her to faith so she would turn away from her sin. And the same would have happened with a homosexual.

Homosexuality is nothing new and is no different from 2000 years ago, so it is time that we get away from viewing it as something new and something special. The Bible has clearly labeled it as sin, so if we’re going to have moral arguments about what is right, wrong, good or bad, then if we’re not going to use the Bible as our guide, then what are gay activists proposing we use to make such determinations? Whatever they say we should? If they appeal to cultural mores that have “evolved” over many civilizations, then how do we know exactly what is the more “evolved” view? And if it has evolved, isn’t it continuing to evolve and perhaps the view that homosexuality is acceptable may not be the most evolved view? And what if they instead argue it is about a person’s personal moral values that should guide us? Then how can I be a bigot if they are saying that they have the moral high ground when in my view I have the moral high ground? If it’s about my personal subjective values, then of course I believe I have the moral ground and they are wrong, just as they believe I am wrong. So you see how ridiculous it is to advocate for same-sex marriage or homosexuality as normative when you have no standard on which to stake your claim. If it is cultural or individually subjective, then there is no particular reason that I should change my view, and I’m not a bigot because I don’t think I’m one, along with others who believe as I do. Dig?

I think the whole debate about homosexuality and same-sex marriage is nothing more than a distraction from having an honest discussion about sin, in all of its forms. If gay rights advocates are correct, then the entire Christian institution falls because if you can read out of the Bible that homosexuality is anything other than sin, then you can read just about anything out of it that you want, and it simply becomes a worthless historical document that can be interpreted any way one wishes to interpret it. If that is the case, then it matters not what was the original intent of the authors, and it matters not a whit whether Christ actually raised from the dead because if the book is that flawed then that didn’t happen either. So you can see where gay activists have brought us. Absolutely nowhere. In pushing their point, what they have done is to make the Bible out to be false, that the written word can be interpreted any way people like, that God (and by extension, Jesus) is only any good if he thinks like a gay activist, and that if anyone doesn’t agree with gay activists then they are bigots are homophobes. If this is the world as they see it and the only world they will accept, then God help us, presuming he exists.

Lest I be misinterpreted, let me make a couple of things clear. First, the only reason I care that someone is a homosexual is because I care about their eternal soul. If there were no such thing as sin and no such thing as an eternal soul that would be in jeopardy due to sin, I wouldn’t give a damn, so to speak. Second, as it pertains to gay rights, I don’t think there is anything such as “gay rights.” Gays are human beings, and deserve the same rights as all other human beings. If a gay person is discriminated against because they are gay, then that is not acceptable because there is simply no reason to discriminate against someone on that basis. The problem is when gays demand that everyone accept their lifestyle choice as something that is normative and moral. Not doing so is no more discriminatory than someone who doesn’t accept fornication (premarital sex) or adultery as normative. All three of these are unacceptable lifestyle choices to Christians, but those who do choose them are free to do so. The Bible is clear on all three of these as moral issues, so homosexuality is not something that should be singled out as acceptable just because gay activists demand it, any more than fornication or adultery should be singled out. If you want to live the gay lifestyle, then by all means go for it, but please do not force me to change the definition of marriage to accommodate you lest I be falsely labeled “a bigot and a homophobe.”

Mr. Luketic,

My name is Tyrone Jackson and I am a resident of Franklin County, Ohio. My family is African American and we live very near the border of the Linden Community and the Clintonville Community (near Hudson and I-71). We own a small business that manufacturers all natural, locally sourced frankfurters and sausages. For more information visit: www.thegoodfrank.com.

I feel very torn writing this email because I wish to praise and sharply criticize your organization.

Firstly, I want to praise the Republican Party for honoring the spirit of America’s long history of success through personal initiative. This spirit is most ideally represented through the class of people, who like myself and my family, call themselves entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs work tirelessly to create, self sufficiency and security for themselves and their loved ones firstly, and secondly, for societal progress through the filling of market or social needs.

I mentioned the neighborhood that I live in because it leads to my criticism.

I am a business owner, I am conservatively oriented; and I am a father that is married to a wife in the traditional sense. It appears, however, that all of those qualities are second to that fact that I happen to be living in an economically poor neighborhood.

Not only were there no Republican offices anywhere near my community, but there were no billboards, no one coming by my house, and in short, there was no Republican presence in my community. How can you grow your organization by alienating the urban communities and further intrenching a misconception that your organization is only for well to do, well established, mostly white families?

Enough of that. I trust my point has been made clear. I now want to offer an observation and a suggestion.

Observation: Americans have lost their connection with the spirit that has made America great. This disconnect has allowed resentment and blame to creep in and settle. In a way, the financial crises of 2008 cemented the feeling of resentment. Mr. Obama and the Democratic party have capitalized on this feeling. And in doing so, have identified the Republican party with greedy capitalist, their families, and their supporters.

Suggestion: The American people must reattach themselves to the Spirit of America. This can be done by creating a coalition of entrepreneurs, citizens, and the Republican Party that promotes entrepreneurship in low income neighborhoods. The program would focus on 1. the historical significance of the United States of America and the capitalistic system, 2. Creating an environment and funding that supports the entrepreneurial experience, and 3. providing access to individuals and experiences that stretch the participants cultural and socioeconomic exposure.

It is really important that this program not be funded through the government or the banking institutions. It must demonstrate unassisted innovation and genuine concern, from people who have succeeded, extended back toward those who desire and who are striving to succeed.

This single act, carried out in ghettos and low income neighborhoods would destroy the negative image that the Republican Party has found itself attached to. More importantly, this type of program would make a difference in the individual participants, their families, and their communities.

Visit my website http://www.thegoodfrank.com/ and see what I am doing. I am building a business that is, at the same time, an entrepreneurial classroom. I want to support people who are actively trying to better their lives. We are building and funding this initiative ourselves because we care about what happens to our community and to people like us. In short we are reflecting the American Spirit in our community and the Republican Party could gain ground in a democratic foothold by supporting this and these types of efforts.

Which ever course that you take, please correct your approach toward low income communities. It appears both callous and negligent. Please let me know if there is anyway that I can help your organization be of service.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS, AND YOUR FRONT DESK ATTENDANT JULIA IS FANTASTIC!

Tyrone Jackson

https://www.facebook.com/tyrone.jackson.1829

http://www.thegoodfrank.com/

Marco Rubio does NOT need to know the earth is billions of years old, especially if a liberal is arguing that he should, as Alex Knapp does in a Forbes article responding  to some comments made by Rubio in a recent GQ interview. Rubio is correct to say “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.” Even though I hold to the Old Earth view (i.e., deep geological time), I will in no way disparage those who hold the Young Earth view (and I don’t know if Rubio does) because they interpret the Hebrew word “yom” as literal days instead of long, indeterminate periods which could be billions of years. There are many excellent, working scientists who hold to a Young Earth view, and it has not jeopardized or compromised any of their scientific endeavors. What pains me the most is because science has made such great gains, scientists of today think they know everything, even about things that they don’t know yet. The truth is no scientist can tell you how the universe began, why galaxies were formed, why solar systems were formed, and how it was possible to get just the right conditions for us to be here and for you to be reading this as a sentient human being. The mathematical odds, in this universe at least, is virtually zero. For those who don’t believe me, I was a math major and I will show you a little math here with a well-known probability example so you can wrap your head around the magnitude of the numbers I’m about to show.

Let’s look at roulette so we can grasp the probabilities. The odds of winning one game at the roulette table is 1 in 38. The probability of the ball falling into a given pocket 100 times consecutively is: 1/38 x 1/38 x 1/38 … 1/38 = 1 in 38^100 or 1 in 10^158. So we can see just how hard that would be.

Now we know that in each of our cells, we have around 25,000 protein-coding genes (though some count more), which basically map to about the same amount of proteins that do all of the work in each of our 70 trillion or so cells in our bodies. Now look at the requirements for one 150-amino acid functional protein to spontaneously form all by itself (and not within the hospitable environment of an already living cell):

• Peptide bonds: 1 in 10^45
• Left-handed amino acids: 1 in 10^45 (this is a really hard one, as there is an equal mixture in non-living things)
• Correct sequence: 1 in 10^74
• Total chance: 1 in 10^164

So the probability of this single protein spontaneously forming is lower than you winning 100 consecutive rounds of roulette.

Now a minimally complex, free living cell needs 1350 proteins, while a minimally complex parasite needs about 350 proteins (mycoplasma genitalium). But let’s just assume 250 proteins (which as far as we know is not possible and wouldn’t be free living anyway).

250 proteins spontaneously form (with no DNA directing synthesis, remember): 1 in 10^41,000

Here are the probabilistic resources we have to work with given the entire history of the universe:

• Particles in universe: 10^80
• Seconds since Big Bang: 10^16
• Possible interactions per second: 10^43
• Total possible events since beginning of universe: 10^139

So you can see that the probability of 250 proteins spontaneously forming is 1 in 10^41,000, but you only have 10^139 possible events since the beginning of the universe 13.7 billion years ago (as the smallest unit of time is the Planck time). That is precisely why I say 13.7 billion years isn’t a lot of time. It is a drop in the bucket. So next time someone says “A LOT can happen in 13.7 billion years,” this is true, but not near as much as they think. In fact, they are orders of magnitude off. It’s not even enough time to for a single protein to spontaneously form by chance, let alone 1,350 of them (the smallest free living cell) to come together in a coacervate along with the instructions in DNA and the required mechanisms needed to continually create new proteins for the operation of the cell. It’s the classic chicken and the egg problem. If you don’t have the machinery to read DNA and translate it into proteins, then you don’t have life. If you don’t have DNA then there is nothing that the machinery has to use as the template for creating the proteins needed for a cell to function. I’m talking here at the level of the single cell, not even multicellular organisms, and certainly not humans with consciousness and the ability to even ponder DNA. So my conclusion is that you need some outside force outside of our universe directing the things that have happened in our universe over the course of only 13.7 billion years. From a logical perspective, I would say this is some form of necessary being, let’s say Aristotle’s passive, far flung God somewhere in eternal repose. From a Christian perspective, I would say it is the God of the Bible. Take your pick.