Tagged: homosexual movement Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Adkins 6:57 am on 2016-05-28 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , homosexual movement, , , , ,   

    Using scripture to justify sexual perversion is actually scriptural* 

    Let’s be up front – I make mistakes! In comparison to the standards of God, the “all” of Romans 3:23 includes me. Even if I were to solely go by my own standards in life, I would still fail at living perfectly. But God forbid that I, in any sort of right mind, would use the word of God to pervert the grace of God and justify the sin that I commit against myself, my neighbor or my creator (Romans 6:1).

    I see my sins! And that means that I know I’m not perfect; but I believe there is a perfect law, and that law in no way excuses sin (James 1:21-25). God’s law, through the blood of Jesus the Christ, will justify sin that’s been repented of (Luke 13:3-5, Acts 2:38), but God’s law in no way excuses sin (Ephesians 5:1-7). And you would think the clarity of scriptures such as Romans 1:18-321 Corinthians 6:9-11; 18Galatians 5:16-21Ephesians 4:17-24; 5:1-7Colossians 3:1-11, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-52 Timothy 3:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:9-12 would be enough to convince someone who thinks otherwise to think otherwise (I could have kept going with several more plainly spoken scripture references but if these 67 verses don’t help you to see the truth of the matter, then sadly you’re probably not able to – John 9:25; 39-41). Fact of the matter is, if it weren’t for the scriptures of God that reveals the will of God (2 Timothy 3:16-171 John 1:7-10; 3:4-7Psalm 19:8, 119:172) I wouldn’t even know whether I have sinned against God! (Romans 7:7)

    Despite the sound line of the afore-mentioned reasoning, there are some in the religious world who find great pleasure in using twisting the scriptures of God to excuse sin, and great offense at anyone who “dares” to suggest that one can know that another is committing or living in sin. For proof all you have to do is read this story about offended politicians and the comments that followed where homosexuality and the rest of the LGBTQ letters are defended with verses such as the “ole-reliable” Matthew 7:1-2 (judge not that you be not judged…), Matthew 7:12 (the “golden-rule”) and even Matthew 22:37-40 (the first and second commandment). (More …)

  • Eugene Adkins 6:29 am on 2014-10-21 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , homosexual movement,   

    I guess they do believe in personal interpretation after all 

    During the last couple of years in the ole’ blogosphere I have been accused by Catholic apologists of self-popery. And why such an accusation? Because I dared to have “a personal interpretation” of the Bible that disagreed with them and with the pope’s!

    In the Catholic Church, one’s doctrine is not determined by the revealed and written word alone – it is determined by those who make determinations based upon orally determining factors (a.k.a. making up the rules as you go) that shape the determination of God’s will in God’s word. Therefore to rest upon the written word of God alone is to be mistaken, and studying to show yourself approved (2 Timothy 2:15) need not apply since the studying has already been done for you. You just need to study what has already been studied and follow what those personal studies determined for you to study and personally believe.

    Case in point is the latest issue the Catholic Church is having with the pope’s willingness to actually “have a debate” on the sinfulness of homosexuality. The reason I bring this up is that there should be no debate at all – none whatsoever. And why not? Because the word of God has settled the issue, but unfortunately the written word of God is not enough for the Catholic Church.

    I know, I know. Many Catholic apologists will say “the issue is more complicated” than what I’m presenting it to be. And my response to that is “it’s only complicated because the pope (the pride and head of the Catholic Church) is complicating a very uncomplicated biblical issue and it’s making a lot of Catholics feel uncomfortable.” It’s actually a case of the pope wanting to do something but the Catholic Church has decided that personal interpretations do indeed matter after all.

    Following the closing of this latest “synod session” it was released to the press that, “This synod will be followed by a year of consultations, and a follow-up questionnaire will be sent out to dioceses around the world. A second, larger synod will then be held in October 2015After that, the results will be handed to the Argentinian pope, who will have the final say in outlining the Church’s stance on family matters.”

    A questionnaire? Why that would involve making personal interpretations wouldn’t it? Why not just speak “ex cathedra” and get it over with. After all, when the “ex cathedra” starts talking, the Catholic Church has no other choice but to listen because the pope can do no wrong when he starts dictating what is and what is not right for the Catholic Church to believe. But I really do wonder what would happen to all the Catholics if the very “papa” who could do no wrong actually told the majority of the people who make up the Catholic Church that their personal interpretation was wrong on this issue? I wonder how open they’d be to personal interpretation then? But then again, why would the pope do that? After all, who is he to judge?

    You see, the irony of the whole matter to me is that while I have been accused of self-popery multiple times over the last couple of years, because I have dared to have an opinion that disagrees with “Catholic Oral Tradition”, the reality of the matter is that the Catholic Church actually has a pope in authority who could be accused of the very thing I’m supposedly guilty of – self-popery! For if the Catholic Church had always had the right answer on this issue then how can this discussion be anything but wrong?

    The spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics had called for the Church to take a more merciful approach to unmarried mothers, remarried divorcees and gays, famously saying of homosexuals, “Who am I to judge?”” (see the above link for the quote source)

    So much for that Catholic unity. And may we all learn a valuable lesson about biblical authority from this situation.

    Related Article:

    • Joseph Richardson 2:03 pm on 2014-10-21 Permalink | Reply

      Hey Eugene. The Catholic view of interpreting Scripture really in no way resembles “making it up as you go” (arguably, this is the way many non-Catholics view it). We interpret it, largely, the way it’s always been interpreted. “Studying to show yourself approved by God” really ought to, you know, involve studying the way Christians have read and interpreted Scripture from the very beginning.

      I think you are misinterpreting the meaning and outcome of the synod on the family — along with many in the secular media. You are bound to get a warped view of Pope Francis and of the Catholic Church in general if you’re only going on what they say. If you have read any of what Pope Francis has actually said and written, “the sinfulness of homosexuality” is not a question of “debate” for him (though it may be, I admit, a question a few liberal bishops would like to raise). The oft-reported “Who am I to judge?” quote has been taken grossly out of context: what the pope said was, he had no place to judge a priest who had homosexual attractions and tendencies but who lived a celibate life in accord with the Church’s teachings. Sin is sin, and of that there is no question or doubt.

      The larger issue that the synod considered, and which indeed there has been a lot of debate about, is the best way for pastors to approach Catholics who have been civilly divorced and remarried outside the Church — who, in the Catholic understanding, are now “living in sin” and are not allowed to receive the Eucharist. Some (more liberal) would have the Church relax these restrictions, since sin is so widespread, but again, but if you read the final report of the synod, the gathered bishops reaffirmed the sanctity and sacramentality of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Despite what the media would tell you, and what activists would like to make it, homosexuality was a minor and marginal concern. (How best to minister to homosexuals in the light and truth of the Gospel of Christ is always something worth discussing, and this is what was discussed.)

      • Eugene Adkins 6:52 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

        Hi Joseph.

        My friend, it sounds like you’re making a molehill out of a mountain.

        • Joseph Richardson 7:37 pm on 2014-10-23 Permalink | Reply

          For a more realistic view of your “mountains,” you might try reading some conservative Catholic news sources. My favorite is the National Catholic Register. There is a lot of concern about this, but you are getting a very distorted perspective.

    • Jack 6:44 pm on 2014-10-21 Permalink | Reply

      Interpretation is the assignment of meaning to that which is not self evident. In other words_ opinion which denies the existence of truth and surely invites comparisons as opposed to what can be known.

      “But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and GOD.
      (Ephesians 5:3-5)

      “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge GOD any longer, GOD gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are a gossips, slanderers, haters of GOD, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, ALTHOUGH THEY KNOW the ordinance of GOD, that those who practice such things are worthy of a death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
      (Romans 1:28-32)

  • J. Randal Matheny 2:26 pm on 2014-04-08 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Firefox, homosexual movement, Mozilla   

    Mozilla becomes the byword of a watershed moment 

    Some events at first don’t appear to be defining moments, and some of those seem far removed from the greater flow of History. The Mozilla debacle appears to be shaping up as one of those moments in America. (Mozilla is the sort-of non-profit company that maintains the Firefox browser.)

    Those of you who know me know I’m not a political creature. And I have some serious differences with Mr. Prager, author of this piece, but here he hits it head on.


    For the record, I abandoned Firefox the day after the CEO stepped down.

  • J. Randal Matheny 12:38 pm on 2011-05-25 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Christian blogging, , homosexual movement,   

    Progress of the gospel and a potential threat 

    Just listened to the MinistryGeek podcast about preachers and blogging, as another way of speaking the gospel, among other things. Always something of interest on this Wednesday audio broadcast. I enjoy catching it live, when I can, which allows participation in the chat room. Michael Hite, of Bear Valley Institute, Dale Jenkins, preacher at Spring Hill, Tenn., and Caleb O’Hara, preacher in Calif., are the hosts. The podcast is a part of The Equip Network.

    • Catch the great story on BrotherhoodNews.com by Roy Davison about the new congregation established in Ireland … from Belgium. Always inspiring to see how efforts in print and on the Internet contribute to the progress of the gospel.

    • Did I mention the note about the Brazil Supreme Court applying marriage rules to homosexuals? It represents a potential threat to religious liberty. From this foreigner’s perch, looks like judicial activism. Pray this ruling somehow gets overturned, though that’s not likely to happen.

    • Weylan Deaver 2:41 pm on 2011-05-25 Permalink | Reply

      Isn’t it remarkable how technology brings folk together, so that you, in Brazil, can participate with a live program consisting of preachers in three U.S. states, as though they were in the same room, and a Christian in Belgium can help convert an Irishman, who then begins a new congregation, and we read of it in an online “paper” produced by saints on different continents.

    • J. Randal Matheny 3:21 pm on 2011-05-25 Permalink | Reply

      Absolutely amazing. Whoever could have predicted something like this 50 years ago?

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc