Tag Archives: Homosexuality

Is Matthew Vines twisting Scripture to justify sinful sexual behavior?

I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery
I have a key that will unlock a puzzling mystery

Here’s a post from Christian apologist Terrell Clemmons about efforts by gay activists to redefine Christianity so that it is consistent with homosexual behavior. This particular post is focused on Matthew Vines.

She writes:

In March 2012, two years after having set out to confront homophobia in the church, Matthew presented the results of his “thousands of hours of research” in an hour-long talk titled “The Gay Debate.” The upshot of it was this: “The Bible does not condemn loving gay relationships. It never addresses the issues of same-sex orientation or loving same-sex relationships, and the few verses that some cite to support homophobia have nothing to do with LGBT people.” The video went viral (more than three quarter million views to date) and Matthew has been disseminating the content of it ever since.

In 2013, he launched “The Reformation Project,” “a Bible-based, non-profit organization … to train, connect, and empower gay Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on homosexuality from the ground up.” At the inaugural conference, paid for by a $104,000 crowd-funding campaign, fifty LGBT advocates, all professing Christians, gathered for four days in suburban Kansas City for teaching and training, At twenty-three years of age, Matthew Vines was already becoming a formidable cause célèbre.

Terrell summarizes the case he makes, and here is the part I am interested in:

Reason #1: Non-affirming views inflict pain on LGBT people. This argument is undoubtedly the most persuasive emotionally, but Matthew has produced a Scriptural case for it. Jesus, in his well-known Sermon on the Mount, warned his listeners against false prophets, likening them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Then switching metaphors he asked, “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” The obvious answer is no, and Jesus’s point was, you can recognize a good or bad tree – and a true or false prophet – by its good or bad fruit. From this, Matthew concludes that, since non-affirming beliefs on the part of some Christians cause the bad fruit of emotional pain forother Christians, the non-affirming stance must not be good.

Terrell’s response to this is spot on, and I recommend you read her post to get the full response.

She writes:

Matthew Vines in particular, and LGBTs in general, appear to be drivingly fixated on changing other people’s moral outlook. But why? Why are they distressed over the shrinking subset of Christianity that holds to the traditional ethic of sex? Note that Matthew found an affirming church in his hometown, as can most any LGBT-identifying Christian. Affirming churches abound. Gaychurch.org lists forty-four affirming denominations – denominations, not just individual churches – in North America and will help you find a congregation in your area. Why, then, given all these choices for church accommodation, are Matthew and the Reformers specifically targeting churches whose teachings differ from their own?

One gets the sense that LGBTs really, really need other people to affirm their sexual behavior. Certainly it’s human to want the approval of others, but this goes beyond an emotionally healthy desire for relational comity. Recall Matthew’s plea that non-affirming views on the part of some Christians cause emotional pain for others. He, and all like-minded LGBTs, are holding other people responsible for their emotional pain. This is the very essence of codependency.

The term came out of Alcoholics Anonymous. It originally referred to spouses of alcoholics who enabled the alcoholism to continue unchallenged, but it has since been broadened to encompass several forms of dysfunctional relationships involving pathological behaviors, low self-esteem, and poor emotional boundaries. Codependents “believe their happiness depends upon another person,” says Darlene Lancer, an attorney, family therapist, and author of Codependency for Dummies. “In a codependent relationship, both individuals are codependent,” says clinical psychologist Seth Meyers. “They try to control their partner and they aren’t comfortable on their own.”

Which leads to an even more troubling aspect of this Vinesian “Reformation.” Not only are LGBT Reformers not content to find an affirming church for themselves and peacefully coexist with everyone else, everyone else must change in order to be correct in their Christian expression.

This is the classic progression of codependency, and efforts to change everyone else become increasingly coercive. We must affirm same-sex orientation, Matthew says. If we don’t, we are “tarnishing the image of God [in gay Christians]. Instead of making gay Christians more like God … embracing a non-affirming position makes them less like God.” “[W]hen we reject the desires of gay Christians to express their sexuality within a lifelong covenant, we separate them from our covenantal God.”

Do you hear what he’s saying? LGBTs’ relationships with God are dependent on Christians approving their sexual proclivities. But he’s still not finished. “In the final analysis, then, it is not gay Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving relationships. It is we who are sinning against them by rejecting their intimate relationships.” In other words, non-affirming beliefs stand between LGBTs and God. Thus sayeth Matthew Vines.

The rest of her article deals with Vines’ attempt to twist Scripture to validate sexual behavior that is not permissible in Christianity.

Vines seems to want a lot of people to agree that the Bible somehow doesn’t forbid this sexual behavior so that the people who are doing it won’t feel bad about doing it. If he can just silence those who disagree and get a majority of people to agree, then the people who are doing these things will feel better.

Well. I am a chaste man now in my late 30s. I have not so much as kissed a woman on the lips. There is no societal celebration for what I am doing, not even in the church. But you don’t see me complaining that people need to validate my choice to be chaste. And the reason is, that even if the entire world were against me, the morality of chastity is self-authenticating. It doesn’t matter how many people make me feel bad about what I am doing, I have the direct experience of doing the right thing. Being chaste allows me to love women upward by treating them like equal partners in the gospel, and expecting them to work for the gospel like any man would.

Matthew Vines is annoyed that we expect homosexuals to work through their same-sex attractions, abstain from premarital sex, and then either remain chaste like me, or marry one person of the opposite sex and then confine his/her sexual behavior to his/her marriage. But how is that different than what is asked of me? I have opposite sex-attractions (boy, do I!), but I am also expected to abstain from premarital sex, and either remain chaste, or marry one woman for life, and confine my sexual behavior to that marriage. If I have to exercise a little self-control to show God that what he wants from me is important to me, then I am willing to do that. I’m really at a loss to understand why so many people take sexual gratification as a given, rather than as an opportunity for self-denial and self-control. I am especially puzzled by sinful people demanding that other celebrate their sin – and using the power of the government now to compel others to celebrate their sin.

Believe me, I understand what it is like to be without a woman’s love and support. I started out with a cold, distant, selfish, career-oriented mother. I dreamed about marriage since I was in high school – I remember praying about my future wife, even then. No one that I know has a stronger need for validation and encouragement from a woman than I do. Yet if I have to let that go in order to let God know that what he wants matters to me, then I will do it.

My service to God is not conditional on me getting my needs met. And my needs and desires are no less strong than the needs of people who engage in sex outside the boundaries of Christian teaching. We just make different decisions about what/who comes first. For me, Jesus is first, because I have sympathy with Jesus for loving me enough to die in my place, for my sins. I am obligated to Jesus, and that means that my responsibility to meet expectations in our relationship comes above my desire to be happy and fulfilled. For Matthew, the sexual desires come first, and Scripture has to be reinterpreted in light of a desire to be happy. I just don’t see anything in the New Testament that leads me to believe that we should expect God to fulfill our desires. The message of Jesus is about self-denial, self-control and putting God the Father first – even when it results in suffering. I take that seriously. That willingness to be second and let Jesus lead me is what makes me an authentic Christian.

There is a good debate featuring Robert Gagnon and a gay activist in this post, so you can hear both sides.

Some tips to social justice warriors on how to fake a hate crime

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

First, let’s double-check the details of the latest hate crime hoax by a gay activist.

CNS News explains:

The image of a cake reading “Love Wins ***” caused a stir of social media recently after an openly homosexual pastor posted a video online, but the company that sold the cake says the claim is fraudulent and they are countersuing.

KEYE-TV is reporting, the attorney for Pastor Jordan Brown says he ordered a cake from the Whole Foods store in Austin, Texas with the personalized message “Love Wins,” but when he received it read “Love Wins ***.”

[…]On Tuesday, Whole Foods released store security video and a statement on the cake purchase, and they claim the cake box was altered.

“Mr. Brown admits that he was in sole possession and control of the cake until he posted his video, which showed the UPC label on the bottom and side of the box.” the statement reads.

“After reviewing our security footage of Mr. Brown, it’s clear that the UPC label was in fact on top of the cake box, not on the side of the package. This is evident as the cashier scans the UPC code on top of the box.

“After a deeper investigation of Mr. Brown’s claim, we believe his accusations are fraudulent and we intend to take legal action against both Mr. Brown and his attorney.”

Whole Foods Market has filed a defemation lawsuit against Brown and his attorney seeking $100,000 in damages.

You’ll notice that I blanked out the curse word, because I think it’s horrible to make people that I disagree with uncomfortable with curse words. I don’t like what some gay activists are doing with respect to using the education system and government coercion to push an agenda against natural marriage and first amendment right, but I don’t want to say anything intimidating. I just want to disagree.

Apparently, the hate crime guy is short of money:

On Wednesday, Fox 7 Austin reported that Brown was sued just one month ago for nearly $30,000.

The complaint was filed on March 11, 2016 for breach of contract by the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust for unpaid student loans related to his education at Slippery Rock University, a public, master’s level university in Pennsylvania. Brown is being sued for an unpaid student loan balance of $24,885.25 and unpaid interest of $3,030.26, for a total of $27,915.51.

Fox 7 Austin also reported that the Facebook page of Brown’s church, the “Church of Open Doors,” was soliciting donations claiming that they are moving to a new location and expanding, but when they visited the address listed, they “found nothing, just an apartment complex.”

A Google search for the address listed on the Facebook page brings up the AMLI South Shore apartments. A nearby address listed on the Church of Open Doors’ website isn’t a church either, but a postal/courier businesst hat also rents U-Haul trucks.

Anyway, so it looks like another fake hate crime. Here are some tips from The Federalist about how to commit a successful fake hate crime.

List:

  1. Pick A Believable Villain
  2. A Good Witness
  3. Pick Better Ironclad Proof Than An Easily-Resealable Adhesive Sticker.
  4. Make Your Victimization As Anonymous As Possible
  5. Know What You Don’t Know

Here is the most important one:

#4 Make Your Victimization As Anonymous As Possible

A good social justice hoax will just blame “Christians who came into my restaurant” or “someone in my town, don’t know who.” In these examples, you’re claiming to have been victimized by someone in a pool of tens of thousands to millions of people. In the case of Brown, he named the specific Whole Foods, where specific people are on record as having decorated specific cakes. Probably with video evidence.

The specific employee who was accused of bigotry, it turns out, is, in the parlance of 2016 America, a “member of the LGBTQ community.” And the record shows, according to Whole Foods, that the cake was made as requested, with “Love Wins” written on the tip top of it.

It can’t be said enough: Never pin your hoax on an actual, specific person who can be questioned and who can refute your dumb story.

Dear, oh dear. The person who baked the cake is gay. That won’t work for this hate crime.

I blogged before about several other fake hate crimes in this post, this post and this post. It happens a lot. It might be a good idea to assume that hate crimes committed against the secular left are false unless they are proven true. There is a lot of mental illness in the secular left crowd.

Ryan Anderson debates Alastair Gamble on marriage at Arizona State University

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Details:

A debate about what marriage is, hosted by the Federalist Society at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, featuring Ryan T. Anderson and Alastair Gamble.

The debate took place at the law school at Arizona State University.

Ryan T. Anderson:

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American principles and public policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Anderson is the author of the “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.” He is the co-author with Princeton’s Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of the book “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.”

Anderson received his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He holds a doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His dissertation was titled: “Neither Liberal nor Libertarian: A Natural Law Approach to Social Justice and Economic Rights.”  He also holds a master’s degree from Notre Dame.

Alastair Gamble:

Alastair Gamble is an attorney in the firm’s Litigation group and focuses his practice on Labor and Employment at both the trial and appellate level.

From 2008 – 2012, Mr. Gamble practiced in Los Angeles, California, where he focused on Labor and Employment and Securities litigation. Before that, he served as a law clerk to Hon. Andrew Hurwitz of the Arizona Supreme Court and as a judicial extern to Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Mr. Gamble holds the J.D., Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and the B.A., History, Emory University, 2000.

The video is 70 minutes:

The format is 15 minute opening speeches, 5 minute rebuttals, then Q&A.

What are all the big liberal corporations trying to protect in North Carolina?

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

So, North Carolina passed a law that says that in the state of North Carolina, people with male equipment have to use a male bathroom, and people with female equipment have to use a female bathroom.

Lots of corporations have come out against this law, as AMAC explains:

Here’s a list of companies that have come out against the newly signed law:

Salesforce, Bank of America, American Airlines, Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, PayPal, Google, Lowe’s Home Improvement, NBA, NCAA, MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), Disney, ESPN, Marvel, Facebook, Charlotte Motor Speedway, BB&T Ballpark, Biogen, DOW Chemical Company, Citrix, Bayer, NC Policy Watch, IBM, Burt’s Bees, Duke University, Wake Forest University, SAS Institute.

And here is one typical response from one company – Pay Pal. The leftist Washington Post reports:

The backlash against a North Carolina law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people continued Tuesday, with PayPal saying it is abandoning plans to expand into Charlotte in response to the legislation.

This decision came just weeks after PayPal, the California-based online payments firm spun off from eBay, said it would open a global operations center in Charlotte, a move that state officials said would bring millions to the local economy and employ 400 people.

I note that Pay Pal does business in many, many countries where homosexuality is illegal, and many, many other countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. They aren’t making a fuss about those countries, though. They’re just making a fuss in North Carolina. That’s called hypocrisy, and most big corporations are actually like Pay Pal – not conservative in any way shape or form.

The WaPo article also notes:

This law could also cost the state federal funding. At least five federal agencies are debating whether to withhold money because of the law.

So, that’s what happens when you pay taxes to the federal government, and why we need to get the government out of anything that is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

The champion of the big pro-gay corporations

Anyway, now that we understand what those big corporations stand for, let’s take a look at who they are enabling. Let’s go to Canada, which is further down the road of sexual anarchy and moral relativism, and see how things are working out there.

Here is the article from the Toronto Sun:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

The judge said he imposed the indefinite prison sentence because there’s a great risk that Hambrook will commit more sex crimes and require strict supervision if he returns to the community.

[…]He noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

How could a man dress up as a woman and be allowed into a women’s space with women’s bathrooms and women’s showers?

Life Site News explains:

Ontario amended its Human Rights Code to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” prohibited grounds for discrimination in 2012.

[…]Family advocates argued at the time that the NDP sponsored bill would create a legal right for a man who calls himself ‘transgender’ to use rooms and facilities intended for women so as to exploit women.

The bill was subsequently dubbed the “bathroom bill” by its critics.

And what did the transgender man do with that law? This:

[The] Court also heard evidence of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect,” court heard.

The same deaf women reported that Hambrook would peer at her through a gap between the door and its frame while she showered.

And you can see similar problems already in liberal states like Washington:

In 2012 a college in Washington state decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna. Police told one outraged mother that the university could not bar the biological male from the premises.

The Daily Wire reports that the University of Toronto, which is a city in the province of Ontario, is now partially reversing itself on their transgender agenda:

The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

Conservatives like me try to say that it’s a bad situation when men can walk into women’s change rooms, and walk around naked near women who are showering, going to the bathroom or changing clothes. But the big corporations disagree, they want biological men in women’s spaces, and all the better if clothes are coming on and off.  When the big corporations make these sorts of stands in favor of “inclusiveness” and “diversity”, it’s important to know what it is they really value. And what they don’t value, too.

In a previous post, I explained that the lead architect (pictured above) of the Charlotte legislation that allowed men to walk around naked in women’s bathrooms and showers was himself on a sex-offender registry. And that’s where all of these big corporations out to be put as well. On the sex-offender registry.

Pediatricians warn against indoctrinating kids in transgenderism

Lets take a closer look at a puzzle
Lets take a closer look at a puzzle

The American College of Pediatricians, an organization that values the needs of vulnerable children above the desires of selfish adults, has issued a statement about teaching children about transgenderism. (H/T George, Katy, Kevin, William)

Intro:

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

They have 8 points, here they are:

  1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder.
  2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
  3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.
  4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.
  5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
  6. hildren who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.
  7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.
  8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.

Number 7 is the one that I thought was the most interesting:

Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

The source for that 88% of girls and 98% of boys is the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM, 5th edition. Seems to me that it doesn’t make any sense to steer these children towards something irreversible, (surgery!), when they will reverse themselves in a few years. Especially when giving them the drugs and performing the surgery can increase the risk of suicide – even in countries that are more affirming of the gay agenda.

It turns out that being “nice” by lying to someone doesn’t always lead to that person’s happiness. Sometimes, telling someone a hard truth that they don’t want to hear is the best thing for them. A lot of things we do when we are young are not good for us, and the longer it gets dragged out, the more harm is caused.