Author: admin

Is Islam the True or a False Religion?

Islam, Mohammed, Muslims …. Islam is a religion that has been on the world scene for quite some time now. Mohammed and his followers started out to conquer the world and today they are still on the march to that end. Based on the evidence we have, can we honestly say that the religion of Muslims is simply a religion of conquest or is it even more sinister than that?

Below is an excellent sermon outline written and preached by a missionary friend of ours in the nation of Australia, Brother Mark Tossell. Please consider it carefully and check out some of the other resources listed on this page…

Islam, Mohammed, Muslims
Islam

Please Read : Matthew 26:50-52

Introduction:

This morning we shall study a false religion that has been much in the news recently, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is the fastest-growing religion in the world: Islam.

There are now well over 1.2 billion Moslems in the world, dominating more than 40 countries on 3 continents.

900 churches in England have been converted into mosques; there are more Moslems in England than there are evangelical Christians.

Islam is the 3rd largest religion in the U.S. and Britain, and the 2nd largest in Europe.

In 1974 France had one mosque; in 1998 they had over 1,600.

What exactly is this religion that many thousands are willing to kill and die for?

I. Founder: Mohammed (570-632 A.D.)

1) Moslems believe that Allah has sent 124,000 (!) prophets into the world; 25 are mentioned in the Koran. Six of the most important prophets are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

2) Mohammed, the apostle of Allah, is the considered by Moslems to be the greatest of the prophets.

3) Mohammed was born on 8 June 570 AD in Mecca to Abdullah and Aminah of the Quraysh tribe. Both his parents died when he was young, so he was sent at the age of six to live with his grandparents, then to a rich uncle, then to a poor uncle.

4) In his childhood he began to experience spirit visitations. His mother, Aminah, often claimed that she was visited by spirits or jinns. This occult association was inherited by her son.

5) Early Muslim tradition records that, when Mohammed was about to receive a revelation from Allah, he would often fall on the ground, his body would jerk uncontrollably, his eyes would roll backward, and he would perspire profusely. After the trance, he would rise and tell the message given to him.

6) Most of Mohammed’s early pagan religious upbringing was transferred into Islam.

7) Mohammed is regarded as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. ‘He who obeys the apostle, obeys Allah’. (4:80).

i) If Mohammed murdered his enemies, so can Muslims.

ii) If Mohammed stole whatever he wanted, so can Muslims.

iii) If Mohammed took as many wives as he wanted, so can Muslims.

8) The traditional view is that Mohammed was a sinless prophet, yet he often asked Allah to forgive his sins.

II. History / Organisation:

1) Mohammed’s first converts were his family. When his message first became public, the people of Mecca angrily laid siege to his part of Mecca. To appease these pagans, he said it was right to pray to and worship Allah’s three daughters, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat.

2) When his disciples at Medina heard of his lapse into polytheism, they rebuked him strongly. Mohammed then reverted to monotheism and stated that Allah can abrogate (or cancel) a past revelation.

3) This led the pagan Meccans to ridicule Mohammed’s Allah as being unable to make up his mind.

4) Due to growing hostility and ridicule, Mohammed fled to Taif. Here he made no converts, so he returned to Mecca.

5) On his way back to Mecca, Mohammed claimed to preach and convert the jinns (genies). The Koran then claims that the jinns agreed to preach Islam to the people.

6) When Mohammed moved to Medina, he had been preaching for 13 years and had gained only about 100 followers, most of whom were poor. Farming was difficult in the desert. The only short-cut to wealth was looting caravans and raiding weaker tribes. They stole women and children, selling them back to their husbands and fathers.

7) As Mohammed won battles, his success gained him wealth and power, both political and religious.

8) After one Jewish town surrendered, 1000 Jewish men were beheaded in one day, their women and children were enslaved, and their possessions looted.

9) Having a larger army, he made a 10-year peace treaty with Mecca. Yet within one year, he broke the treaty and, with a large army, forced Mecca to surrender and accept him as political and religious leader.

10) As the leader of Mecca, Arab tribesmen began to flock to him from all sides.

11) Thus Islam began to grow and prosper.

III. Purpose:

The ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer the world and rule it by Islamic law. They allow conversion to Islam by persuasion, by force, or by murdering opponents.

IV.Source of Authority:

The revelations and teachings of Mohammed.

V. Claim:

The true God is the Moslem deity, Allah; all other views of God are false because the Koran teaches that “The true religion with God is Islam.”
VI. Key Literature:

1) The Koran.

i) The Koran is considered the inspired Word of Allah, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed.

ii) It is, therefore, considered to be perfect and without error.

iii) However, archaeology and linguistics since 1890 have shown overwhelming evidence that Mohammed produced his religion and the Koran from pre-existing Arabian material, and that, with all its mistakes, could not have come from heaven.

iv) There is no evidence for the inspiration of the Koran (eg. prophecy; archaeology).

v) The Koran is filled with mistakes and contradictions; the Arabic text has also been corrupted. [See Pastor Piper’s Answers Book for details and numerous examples]

vi) Moslems are told to accept both the Bible and the Koran – how can they do so when both are so contradictory toward each other? Therefore they reject the bible as being corrupted by Christians.

vii) The Koran is to be read in Arabic, even though only 20% of Moslems are Arabs! Many Moslems reject translations of the Koran into other languages.

viii) Many Moslems have not read the Koran, either because they do not read Arabic or because they are illiterate. Therefore, they depend upon Imams (teachers) to teach them about Islam.
2) The Hadith:

a collection of Mohammed’s own writings and teachings.

VII. Attitude Towards Christianity: Rejecting.

Those who reject Mohammed and the Koran are infidels and unbelievers, and as such are destined for Hell

VIII. Doctrinal Summary:

1) GOD:

i) Unknowable, impersonal and incomprehensible.

ii) Breaks His promises at will.

iii) Loves the righteous, but does not love the sinner.

iv) The author of all things, both good and evil.

v) Who really is Allah? Is He the God of the Old and New Testament?

(a) ‘Allah is a pre-Islamic name … corresponding to the Babylonian Bel’. (Encyclopaedia of Religion)

(b) Allah was the personal name of the moon god, a male deity worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia, who was married to the female sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses called ‘the daughters of Allah’.

(c) The Quraysh tribe of Mohammed was strongly devoted to Allah the moon god, and to Allah’s three daughters.

(d) Mohammed’s father’s name was ABD-ALLAH. His uncle’s name was OBIED-ALLAH, thus showing Mohammed’s family’s devotion to Allah the moon god.

(e) Archaeologists have dug up many statues and inscriptions where a crescent moon was placed on a deity’s head to symbolise worship of the moon god.

(f) Of the 360 deities worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia, Mohammed chose Allah and rejected the other 359 “lesser” gods.

(g) When a Moslem shouts “Allah akbah” he is not saying “God is great” as we are told by the media. He is actually shouting “God is greatest” compared to the other 359 gods.

2) JESUS:

i) A prophet of Allah.

ii) He did not die, nor need to rise from the dead.

iii) Sinless.

iv) Not divine.

v) Not the son of Allah, for Allah has no children.

vi) Not the Messiah.

vii) Not the Saviour, for there is no Saviour.

viii) Inferior to Mohammed!

3) TRINITY:

Rejected as polytheism.

4) SALVATION:

No assurance of Heaven, as good works and bad works will be weighed at the Judgment Day. A Moslem thinks he has a good shot at Heaven if:

i) He accepts The Moslem god Allah and his prophet Mohammed.

ii) He does good works and all that Allah requires of him, including the Five Pillars of Religion.

iii) He is predestined to Heaven by Allah’s good favour.

The best way to be sure of Heaven is to die bravely in a jihad!

5) ATONEMENT:

There is no atonement for sin.

6) SECOND COMING:

None.

7) BIBLE:

To be respected, but corrupt and unreliable.

8) HEAVEN:

An earthly paradise of gluttony and sexual gratification.

IX. Distinctives:

1) The Five Pillars of Religion:

i) Reciting the creed of Islam: “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.”

ii) Prayer five times a day.

iii) Observing the fast month of Ramadan, where he cannot eat except at night time.

iv) Giving alms to the poor (2.5% of income)

v) Pilgrimage to Mecca, Mohammed’s place of birth.

2) The oppression of women:

i) Mohammed once said, “A cheap rug is more valuable in a man’s home than a woman.”

ii) The Koran encourages men to beat their wives if they disobey them.

iii) A woman is only worth half what a man is worth. They obtain half the inheritance, have half a vote, and their witness in court is only half as valuable as a man’s, according to Islamic Law.

iv) Mohammed’s youngest wife was only 6 years old, and the marriage was consummated when she was only 9. The great prophet of Islam was a paedophile!!!

3) The religion of the sword:

Politically correct media commentators both here and overseas have recently been publishing reports that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Is this true? Does it agree with the facts of history, and with the teachings of the Koran? NO!

i) ‘Islam’ is an Arabic word which originally referred to manliness or heroism or bravery in battle. It meant ‘defiance of death, heroism, to die in battle.’ Sound peaceful?

ii) The Koran says explicitly that Moslems must kill all unbelievers who will not convert to Islam or serve Islam as its slave: “…fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…” (Surah 9:5). This is known as “the verse of the sword.”

iii) After peacefully trying to convert Jews and Christians in Mecca, with no success, Mohammed moved to Medina and launched his new strategy of violence – the period known as “the aggressive years” started. Islam has largely been a religion of bloodshed and intolerance ever since.

iv) There is no greater honour for a Moslem man than to die as a martyr in the jihad, or Moslem holy war. When he dies, he will be transported to Paradise, where 72 brown-eyed virgins await to gratify his every desire.

v) If Islam is a religion of peace, why did Mohammed engage in 47 different battles? I do not remember Jesus, the Prince of Peace, waging war at any time during His earthly ministry!

vi) In the Hadith, Mohammed said, ‘Hear O Muslims the meaning of life … The pillar is Rakatin prayer. The topmost part is Jihad – holy war’.

vii) Apostate Moslems must die: Allah says: ‘If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them’ (Q 4:89);

viii) Those who oppose Islam must die: Allah says: ‘If, after coming to terms with you, they break their oaths, and revile your faith, make war on the leaders of unbelief – for no oaths are binding on them. Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them’. (Q 9:12-14)

ix) ‘Whoever fights for the cause of Allah … we (Allah) shall richly reward him’. (4:74)

x) ‘Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given (Christians and Jews)’ (9:29)

xi) ‘If you do not go to war, Allah will punish you sternly’ (9:39)

xii) ‘Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and hypocrites’. (9:73)

xiii) ‘When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them’. (9:5)

xiv) ‘Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Allah is with you’. (9:123)

xv) ‘Allah loves those who fight for his cause’. (61:4)

X. Talking with Members: There are 3 key topics of discussion when attempting to witness to a Moslem:

1) The nature of God.

The God of the Bible is a personal, loving and forgiving God who desires a relationship with the people whom He has created.

2) The identity and deity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is more than a mere prophet – He is the divine Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead.

3) Salvation by grace through faith.

Here is where all false religions stray from the truth – they depend upon works for salvation, whereas we depend upon the unmerited favour and mercy of a loving God.

CONCLUSION:

Let us love all Moslems and seek to win them to Christ!

Romans 10:2, 3 “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

Shooting Straight

Pro And Cons of Gun Control….Both Sides? Do pro and cons of gun control actually exist or is one a myth and the other directly linked to common sense? I think that common sense combined good background research should help each person determine the truth about gun control, thus helping weigh the pros and cons.

This page is full of information and links to aide you in your search for gun control information…Enjoy becoming informed:

The following information (except slight variations in format and slight wording changes for keyword density purposes) was adapted for use from Gun Owners of America :
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”7

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
guns

Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.” B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:

Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission… without paying a fee… or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union — having three times received the “Safest State Award.”12

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 “crimes” committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:

Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact: Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18 Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando’s rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20 Justice Department study:

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
3/5 of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”21

bar

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
74% of felons polled agreed that “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”22

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
57% of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”23

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz,

“Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate.

In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

Even those who don’t like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator….
Freeze

I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.” Wolfgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no “contrary evidence.” Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls — one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times — that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” Research in Brief (May 1997).

As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.

According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year.

See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 173, 185.

Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 185.

Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet.

The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study’s authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies — nearly a dozen — are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms.

See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

George F. Will, “Are We ‘a Nation of Cowards’?,” Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, “Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense,” The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 — a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime.”

One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study’s findings in John R. Lott, Jr., “More Guns, Less Violent Crime,” The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996).

See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott,

More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). Lott and Mustard,

“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.” Kathleen O’Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, “Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003,” Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm.

Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.

Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).

Florida’s murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States,” Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.

John R. Lott, Jr., “Right to carry would disprove horror stories,” Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).

Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,” Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.

Compare Kleck, “Crime Control,” at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, “Month to Month Statistics: 1991.” (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March – October.)

Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.

Kleck, “Crime Control,” at 13.

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27. 22Id. 23Id.

The Pro and Cons of Gun Control Facts Speak Loud And Clear

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated “courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
gun driveby

Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, “They @%$* well better, they’ve got to protect themselves.”

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.

Pro and Cons of Gun Control Fact:
The numbers clearly show that the police cannot protect every individual. In 1996, there were about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 260 million Americans — or more than 1,700 citizens per officer.

Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981). See also Richard W. Stevens, Dial 911 and Die (1999) which gives the laws and cases in all 50 states to support the statement that government (police) owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack.

Statement of Representative Ron Johnson in U.S. Senate, “Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1987,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary (16 June 1987):33.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics — 1990 (1991):257.

Interview with Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Washington, D.C. (January 11, 2001). In 1996, the total number (estimated) of all law enforcement combined (federal, state and local) that were on duty and assigned to respond to calls at any one time — on the average — was approximately 146,395 officers. There were 265,463,000 people living in the United States in 1996 for an actual ratio of 1,813 citizens for every officer. See also Kleck, Point Blank, at 132.

Find out more on the pro and cons of gun control from Gun Owners of America at www.GunOwners.org

Sixteen Simple Rules to Interpreting Scripture

Interpreting scripture doesn’t have to be hard. If you are a real believer then you have God’s Holy Spirit living inside you to teach you and to guide you, but be careful….there are also evil, demonic spirits that would love to feed you subtle lies in place of the truth in order to lead you and others astray.
“Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth”

Here are sixteen rules to help you “rightly divide the Word of Truth”…

1. Before you begin reading your Bible, pray that the Holy Spirit would teach you.
This is imperative, no Holy Spirit, no understanding.

2. Recognize what the Bible is.
It is the written record of God revealing Himself in history. It teaches us who He is, what He is like, who we are, what we are like and what He expects of us. It is written by God Himself through man. It is inerrant, infallible and perfect.

3. Recognize you bring presuppositions to the table.
It is unlikely you are going to lose your pre-understandings, just recognize you have them and resist the desire to impose them on Scripture.
(Pre-suppositions include: democracy, feminism,individualism, tolerance, entitlement, ethnicity, gender, economic status,education.)

4. Identify what type of genre (literature) you are reading:
Historical Narrative(historical events from God’s perspective), Poetry and Songs (expressions of emotion to God),
Legal Writings (teach God’s high moral standard and His view of justice, principles for government, safety, health and society), Wisdom Sayings(God’s view of wisdom, not man’s),
Prophecy (God’s message to a particular group or all humanity), Teachings of Jesus (truth from Jesus concerning the nature and character of God, heaven, what God expects of us and how Jesus fulfills OT prophecies),
Parables (stories with a punch line…please note, there is only ONE major message per parable and parables are not perfect analogies for other doctrinal issues),
Letters (written with a clear purpose to a well defined audience, intended to teach, rebuke, correct, praise or encourage), Apocalyptic (future end-times, Revelation and parts of Ezekiel and Daniel).

5. Understand Historical Context.
When, why and to whom was this book written.Keep in mind the middle-eastern context and do not make 20th century assumptions.

6. Understand Literary Context.
What verse comes before, after? What is the immediate context? What is the book about? What event led up to this passage?

7. It is all literal.
There are no allegories. Jesus quoted Scripture as if it was historical and factual, not allegorical…so should we.

8. Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Compare your interpretations with other clear teaching. God does not contradict Himself.

9. Grammar, Words and Syntax.
Use Bible dictionaries and commentaries to help you understand the meanings of words, sentence structure, verb tenses and syntax (how the sentence is constructed). Now don’t you wish you had paid attention in grammar class?

10. Interpret unclear verses in light of clear verses.

11. Literal interpretation directs symbolism, parables and poetry. Do not create doctrine from symbolic or parabolic passages that contradict clear teachings. Yes,we can learn theology from these types of passages, but not if they are not supported by other clear verses.

12. Understand “progressive revelation.
” God’s message has been revealed in stages. Remember that many messages were given to a certain people at a certain time fora certain reason.
Be careful to not respond to the wrong message. For instance,God told David to go slay a neighboring country. We would not take that verse and attack Canada.
As a GENERAL rule, there are some general truths expressed in the OT, but if doctrinal teachings are not re-iterated in the NT, be careful not to formulate theology based on an OT writing.

13. Meanings.
We should understand a word by the way it is used in a sentence, a sentence by the way it is used in a paragraph, a paragraph by the way it is used in a chapter, a chapter by the way it is used in a book. Hold on, there’s more.

Understand a book by comparing it with the same author, books by comparing them with other books in the same Testament, and a Testament with the other Testament. That is how you interpret Scripture with Scripture.

14. Author’s intent.
What is the author’s meaning? Do not read into it but read out ofit. Don’t ask, “What does this verse say to me?”. Instead ask, “What does this verse say and how does it APPLY to me?”

15. Distinguish cultural customs from transcultural principles.
A. Is the teaching culture bound (eating meat offered to idols) or of a permanent nature?
B. Is there a trans-cultural principle easily observed? (Greet with a kiss vs. handshake)
C. Is the custom reported or taught in Scripture (parents arranging marriages).

16. Treat the Gospels as a bridge between the Testaments.
Some practices and teachings are transitional.

These 16 rules for interpreting scripture were used by permission from www.ttwministries.com.

You can also read another solidly Biblical perspective on how to approach reading scripture and interpreting scripture at this site built by a Christian friend in the Biblical city of Thessalonica.

Great American Quotes Weekly… But Far From Weak……

Great American quotes … I have loved great quotes including quotes of our founding fathers, presidential quotes, and other patriotic quotes for most of my adult life. They just seemed to be filled with wisdom and often so profound. All generations alive today could greatly benefit from studying and meditating on the patriotic quotes of great Americans. Yet there were others, whom we will also quote, though not Americans at all, who bore within them the same innate sense that morality and goodness were always right and could carry nations to greatness. But, they also realized that the lack of things like righteousness through faith in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ would amount to not only eternal damnation of the souls of men, but also the ruin of nations who fail to recognize and put these principles into practice. Yes the spirit of all truly great American quotes and other patriotic quotes from past citizens of our world reflect that they had the good sense to (at the very least) acknowledge God and realize that His blessings upon men and nations are not imaginary. The founding fathers quotes from the documents, personal letters, and often verbally spoken then recorded for public record are perhaps the greatest indicators that this great nation of America was indeed founded as “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” I have said all of that to say this; Please bookmark this page and come back each week as we feature great American quotes including quotes of our founding fathers, presidential quotes, and patriotic quotes from around the world. Enjoy…

Great American Quotes for the week of December 14, 2004:

(1) Patrick Henry (1736 – 1799), was an American Revolutionary leader and orator who spoke the now famous phrase, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry boldly declared the following, which is one of my personal favorite great quotes:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

(2) John Adams (1735 – 1826), was the second president of the United States and the first one to live in the White House. On June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote:

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

These great American quotes were obtained from the following: America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations
The following are books that will also contain some great American quotes and will give a clarifying picture of our nation’s history and it’s Godly heritage which is so often denied or omitted from textbooks because the liberals are usually the historians:

Great American Quotes book: Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

Great American Quotes book: Faith of Our Founding Fathers

Great American Quotes book: Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Treason is a term that is so misunderstood nowadays. It seems that the liberal elites always apply this term to those who oppose them and their unpatriotic ways, but they whine and cry aloud when it is used to describe liberals themselves no matter how rigidly it applies to them.

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter describes this ridiculous pattern of behavior that liberals and communists use to deflect legitimate candid criticism of their treasonous ways and lack of love for their country in her book, Treason: Liberal Treachery form the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.

Ann gives detailed examples of how the liberals like to pay lip service to the good ole USA when it is convenient for them and they think that it will further their agenda, but in reality they are every bit of the vicious, conniving, unpatriotic creatures we “right wingers” call them. Ann’s work is not just “political bad mouthing”, but documented facts from de-classified Soviet cables that were de-coded during the Cold War proving their treason and betrayal of our beloved nation as well as deep research of many other original sources which bring the incrimination straight home to the liberal.

In Treason, Ann also reveals so much detail about the Joe McCarthy situation of days past that a person who is honest with himself cannot help but proclaim McCarthy a hero of America and the liberals who attack him and have immortalized his name with the maligning term of McCarthyism as communistic liars who would love nothing more than to turn America into a communist nation so that they can finally have a firm hold on the power over the American people they long to. We should probably initiate a federal holiday in honor of Joe McCarthy complete with parades and fireworks.

Treason does contain a few curse words, but it adequately details the liberal and their love for all that is evil in a way that I have not seen before. Ann Coulter pulls no punches and I love it. It is high time that we have more people like her who care enough for our great nation to speak the unadulterated truth.

“When was Christianity founded?” You Ask?

Exactly when was Christianity founded?
That is a question that many are asking on the net today.

The Wrong Answer

Many think that Christianity was founded when the famous Roman Emperor Constantine actually started the Roman Catholic “Church”.

That is not the case.

Still others believe that Christianity was founded by the Apostle Peter because Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:18, “…Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

These also believe that Peter was the first pope. But, these conclusions are not accurate either. The reason is that when Jesus refers to Peter as a “stone” in other passages of scripture, the actual word is Kephas (sorry, no Greek characters available), which means a little stone or a pebble.

This may signify Peter’s “smaller” role in the first century Church than the Lord Jesus Christ.

You see, when Jesus said, “…upon this rock will I build my church”, He was speaking of Himself, not Peter. The word “rock” used there is a different Greek word altogether, petra, that literally means a large immovable rock like a cliff or rock ledge. The metaphor there is that Jesus Christ is the immovable rock foundation that the true church is built upon and that is why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.

In many other places in the Bible, Jesus is described as this kind of immovable rock that stands firm in the face of all adversity.
When Was Christianity Founded?:

The Right Answer

So when was Christianity really founded?

The answer is not as simple as it seems. In other words, I cannot give you an exact date, although I can tell you that the church, which is the body of believers that have repented of their sins and placed all of their faith in Jesus Christ through His death, burial, and resurrection for their soul’s salvation, began being formed when the very first Apostle of Jesus placed his trust fully in Jesus Christ to save him.

And believers have been grafted into the true church of the living God ever since by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him alone, for eternal salvation.

Christian music is certainly one of the most controversial subjects of our day to write about or discuss. Whether in an online forum or within the confines of the church house, discussions about “acceptable” music for Christian’s can become very heated, very quickly…

Why do passions and controversy seem to run so deep and rampant surrounding the subject of music within the church and in the Christian’s everyday life? I believe it is because music is such a powerful medium. I have not always been “into” Christian music, because I have not always been a Christian or at least a Christian who is truly seeking God’s will for my life. But having said that, I must say that I have always been a music lover because music is powerful! Think about it, music, even without any words, has the power to set virtually any type of mood. If your are sad, grumpy, happy, feeling romantic, scared, or feeling any other way, the appropriate type of musical score can effectively and quickly change your mood to any other type of mood in the entire gamut of emotions! Music can literally change your entire emotional state of being!

Why do you think music is used so extensively in movies and every kind of television show from news intros to romantic (and most often, these days, completely inappropriate) love scenes? A musical score alone, Christian music or otherwise, has the capacity in and of itself to set or change any mood! Have I said that enough yet? Music alone does drastically effect people’s emotions, which in turn, more often than not directly affects their outward behavior. Music can delve into the depths of the human heart (not the thumping muscle in your chest cavity, but the heart of your being which contains your innermost desires and tendencies) and dredge up feelings and even actions that we may not even have consciously realized were there. Music can “inspire” us to greatness or great folly. This is why it simply must be discussed!

Anyway, on this subject, I recently came across a very interesting article on the subject of Christian music or, more specifically, “Christian rock music” or what is usually referred to as “contemporary Christian music”. You can read the article in its entirety here: Can God Use Rock Music? , then come back here and find out our take on this issue.

Conservatory Christian Music
http://valorconservatory.org

As the author of the Christian music article found there discusses, the issue of “right and wrong music” is a multi-faceted argument. In fact, as I read and contemplated what he was saying, I was forced to think about my own position on the Christian music issue (which by the way has not changed in its conservative nature). I was forced to meditate on the facts that I know from personal experience, information and experience from others, as well as, and most importantly the Word of God (the Bible) and consider whether my past conclusions on this issue were indeed God inspired or messed up by my own sinful misunderstandings which we are all prone to.

So, here is my take: I would like to examine some of the main points of the article in question one by one and try to explain, not only my own conclusions, but why (the whys are always important) and how I derived the opinions I have about Christian music and music in general and the effects that they seem to have on believers in Christ and the rest of the world as well. I cannot overemphasize that all music is powerful and, not just can, but always does effect people in a multitude of ways!

One of the first things I would like to say about the article is that Keith Green’s conclusion about Christian music is honest and from his heart, but in my mind, it is true to a point, but flawed in that it is incomplete. Here is what I mean: Keith comes to the conclusion at the end of the article that “It’s all in the motives!” While this is true in the sense that the motive of the heart is the single factor that propels all human actions, it also must be taken into account that there are many outside factors including Christian music that directly effect and manipulate the heart of mankind. These factors and their ability to change, even at the spur of the moment the heart of people cannot legitimately be denied. This is why the Bible warns that we should “keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). We are told by God to keep our heart, or please allow me to expound on the word keep: “guard” our heart. To guard our heart means exactly that to keep it from evil influences to avoid corrupting it.

So, as the author so clearly points out, the question then is can music (without words) in and of itself be evil or have evil influence on the heart. Contrary to what Keith Green believes, I think the answer is yes, music is that powerful and it can effect the heart, mind, soul, and, most noticeably, the body.

Let me explain. I have observed my own children at even their smallest toddling age. They were never taught to dance or anything at all about music at the time, but their natural reaction when certain musical scores with a “rock beat” were played on something even as “innocent” as a simple commercial, even without anyone in the commercial dancing or moving in a way which would induce dancing and having never been exposed to or seeing someone else dance in a worldly or carnal way, the child naturally began to move their body in a carnal worldly manner. If an adult were to do the same, it could most certainly incite within others natural sensual thoughts. Melodious Christian music does not produce this effect. Yes, I am saying that the body naturally responds to certain stimuli in a certain way that can only be overcome by the conscious thought of the individual in a resistant manner. Now, if you must consciously resist a certain body motion that is induced only through the medium of music, then there are certainly potential problems there. The Bible clearly teaches self control, or more properly, us allowing God to influence and control our actions and even bodily functions. We are told in reference to controlling substances such as intoxicating beverages to “be not drunk” or controlled “with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit”. We are commanded not to allow ourselves to be influenced negatively by outside forces, but to be controlled by the Spirit of God. Music, like alcoholic beverages, is a spirit, or a strong influence on every part of us, even the heart. This explains the sudden changes of mood that we experience when under the influence of music. Therefore, if a certain “beat” or rhythm in “Christian music” or any other type tends to make the body naturally move in a way that to even a casual observer can be understood to be sensual or make a person look more sexually appealing, this music should be avoided by the Christian, because it cannot really be considered Christian music. The term Christian means “Christ like”. I could be wrong, but I cannot see the Savior dancing to a musical score: WWJD comes to mind. Even if the Christian is a “strong” Christian and has no real desire to do or think that which is not Godly, their heart and body can and may still be caused to stumble thereby. No matter how we love to think of ourselves to be in control, it has been proven over and over through the centuries that man, even redeemed man (and woman), is still fallible and the natural bent toward sinful thoughts and behaviors is not eradicated once a person has been born again. Those tendencies of the Adamic nature are still very much present and must be consciously suppressed and overcome by the nature of God that has been placed inside the Christian by God. I have often heard of the story of the “Indian” who was approached by a preacher who asked about how his Christian life was going. The story tells how the “Indian” replies, “It seems I have within me two dogs, one black dog and one white dog. Black dog no like white dog and white dog no like black dog. They fight all the time!” The preacher then asked, “Well, who wins the fight?” The “Indian” then replied, “Whichever I feed the most.” Whether that story is true or not is irrelevant, the point is that if we feed our sinful nature at all, it will have a better chance of overcoming our Godly “redeemed” nature and can potentially cause us to fall.

If “Christian music” has elements present even in the musical score which naturally tend to incite or increase sexual emotions, even in the slightest, or cause the body to automatically start to dance or tap the foot to an “off beat”, then we have an obligation to ourselves (keeping our heart), to others around us (lest we cause others to fall), and to God (who is grieved when we fall) to avoid that type of sound. Yes, the root of it is about a sensual and/or carnal worldly sound that is present. Christian music should be distinctively Christian in every way.

Now, some people would and have stopped me here and said, “Yeah, but God wants us to dance in the spirit. After all, King David, the man after God’s own heart, danced.” First of all, let’s be clear: King David also lusted, committed adultery, murder, and married multiple wives, but that absolutely does not give the Christian the right to do the same. In fact, it is very important to note that there are all kinds of events recorded in the Bible that are sinful acts committed by otherwise Godly men and women. These recorded events of history do not necessarily, and in most cases don’t, give God’s blessing on the matter or action. Having said that, let me also say that I have seen in a church service, what I believe to be someone “dancing in the spirit”. However, upon close observation, it was not at all with the rhythm of the music being played…And it was not because the person didn’t have rhythm either. I believe that, like David’s dancing; “dancing in the spirit” is completely without the influence of a “rock beat” or rather an “off beat” or any other kind of musical rhythm. (And Christian music does not produce that type of rhythm anyway. I believe “dancing in the spirit” is similar to what I would call, here in the southern United States, “dancing a jig”. Let me explain: I believe that there are times when emotional joy is induced within a person so much that it sometimes overflows from within that person in a way that can only be expressed with a joyful “dance” often characterized by a shuffling motion of the feet, etc. that could in no way be considered sensual or carnal, because it does not appeal to the flesh at all. In fact it looks horrible, but very joyful! It is my personal conviction that this is exactly the kind of dance that King David performed because he was overcome with the joy of the Lord in that the Ark of God was finally back where it belonged! I do not believe that David danced to any kind of rhythm from an outside musical influence, Christian music or otherwise. As always, due to my own inadequacy, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Christian music is distinctive.

There is a certain “sound” that I believe should differentiate Christian music from rock music. What I mean is that I believe that our “worship” should always sound like worship. For example, if a person were to walk by a gathering of Christians during a the musical portion of a worship service at any given place, if they did not know what was going on inside, they should be able to tell by the “sound” they hear if that this is indeed a worship service and not a rock, rap, R&B, pop concert or country music event. The sound of Christian music should literally speak of God’s Holiness, His glory, and righteousness. Christian music should be like everything else in a Christian’s life…it should make us stand out from the world and portray Christ as lovely. Just as there should be a clear difference in the way we behave versus the way the world doesn’t behave in other areas of life. Christians should remain unspotted from the world in as many areas of life as possible. Christian music is distinctive.

The conclusion in Mr. Green’s article is also faulty in that it promotes the type of Theology that states that the end justifies the means. In the common man’s vernacular, “If people are being saved and the church is growing, it cannot be wrong.” This Theology is faulty because it clearly negates the fact that although we should be careful not to be too legalistic in our methodology, God has always put a certain premium on ministry being done His way. God doesn’t always expect us to use the newest ministry methods available, because, believe it or not, every method is not necessarily acceptable or O.K. with God. For example, in 1 Chronicles chapter 13 the story is told of the children of Israel as they were moving the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem after it being away for a long time. David and the Israelites were so excited and in such a hurry to get the Ark back where it belonged that their zeal (which was a good thing) was turned into an evil thing in God’s site simply because they failed to follow God’s plan for transporting the Ark from place to place. What most folks would consider a small breech in protocol that wasn’t a big deal, God thought was such a big deal that He reached out and killed (yes I said killed) Uzza because of the whole ordeal! While the Ark was being carted to its destination, the oxen that pulled the cart with the Ark stumbled and Uzza thought it was going to fall, but his well intentioned move to reach out and steady the Ark to keep God’s property from being soiled was turned into death for him, because God had declared that only the Levites were to touch the Ark. God killed a man who was trying to do a good thing to protect a sacred object that God had ordained simply because the man, as well as the people of Israel, did not follow God’s methodology! Does that make you mad? It shouldn’t, because God is in control of this thing. He designed the entire creation including us. We are the ones who mess things up because we don’t follow His lead. Christian music is distinctive.

Uzza is not the only example of this we see in the scriptures. There are many more. Leviticus Chapter 10 tells of Nadab and Abihu, who were sons of Aaron, ordained by God into the ministry who offered what the Bible calls “strange fire before the Lord, which the Lord commanded them not.” In other words they burned something in worship to the Lord, not that He had expressly told them not to, but just had not told them to…and because they added something “strange” to the worship of God that He did not ordain, verse 2 tells us, “And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” You see, we Christians should be very careful in adding anything to our worship of the Lord that we are not 100% sure that He approves of. This certainly includes Christian music, because (say it with me): Christian music is distinctive.

God commanded us to sing a “new” song. I think this necessarily means a song that is like no song we ever sang while we were unbelievers. True Christian music is distinctive.

Well, this short article on Christian music and a simple critique of a point of view on Christian music has turned into a long dissertation, so for the readers sake, I am going to break this thing up into several (not so bite size) issues on several pages which you will find the links to below as soon as I write them.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the webmaster of Christiansandmusic.com for graciously allowing me to quote the Keith Green article that was on his site and Keith Green for provoking some healthy thought within me on this vital issue of Christian music. Please be sure to read Keith Green’s article at Christiansandmusic.com and come back here to see the rest of my responses on Christian music.

I would also like to ask you to check out some of the links below for more resources to help you in your investigation of Christian music.

This article was written by former ChristianBaptistLiving.com webmaster, Christian music singer, and preacher of the Gospel, Chris Long.

The following links lead to products or articles that are strictly about Christian music, contain substantial information about
Christian music, and some lead to only the best Christian music distributors:

For anyone seeking a better understanding the Christian music opinion on this page, I highly recommend this video about Christian music:
How to Tell the Right Kind of Music

Or get the same Christian music material on audio cassette for just $8 US here:
How to Tell the Right Kind of Music

Here is 6 hours of teaching from about 500 verses in the Bible concerning Christian music. Further discription and purchase info is here:
Music in the Bible

Christian music siminar with the beloved Alfred B. Smith:
Church Music Siminar

Christian Music Siminar (only $4.95 + S&H):
1999 Church Music Seminar #1

Christian Music Siminar (only $4.95 + S&H):
1999 Church Music Seminar #2

Christian Music Siminar (only $4.95 + S&H):
1999 Church Music Seminar #3

A message on Christian music:
A New Song

Christian music seminar:
Biblical Music Standards

A Christian music message:
Biblical Standards of Sacred Music

Christian music booklet:
Choir Tips – Vol. I

A book that provides council for guidance in Christian music and many other areas of life:
Dear Lord, Tell Me What to Do

Find top notch Christian music here:
Faith Music
Find more of the best Christian music here…melodious Christian music:
Asaph Music Company

The title makes this book about Christian music and rock music pretty self explanatory:
The Truth About Rock Music

This book discusses the role of Christian music in the Christian’s life, the philosophy of music, and answers commonly asked questions about Christian musical standards:
A Song in Your Heart

An outstanding book that takes an in depth look at the philosophy of Christian music:
Music in the Balance

Kimberly Smith addresses the issue of contemporary Christian music straight on:
Let Those Who Have Ears To Hear

The title of this Christian music book gives away the subject matter:
Why I Left The Contemporary Christian Music Movement: Confessions Of A Former Worship Leader

Do Christians Really Hate Homosexuals? The Revealing Answer is Here!

Many homosexuals and their advocates today accuse fundamental Christians of hating them and committing hate crimes against them. But do Bible believing Christians really hate them?

Is there a major misunderstanding? Or are all of the hate accusations really a strategicly placed political propaganda campaign to thrust forward the agenda of the homosexuality movement at large?

I hope the following correspondence between a self-proclaimed lesbian and a Christian minister will shed some light on how true Christians really view those caught up in the lifestyle of homosexuality…

The following correspondence has been used by permission:

by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, www.epm.org

Note: Names and distinguishing details have been changed to protect the writer’s identity. However, 98% of the words are hers.

Mr. Alcorn,

I am a big fan of your writing—both your books and your articles. I recommend you to Christians and non-Christians alike and visit your website frequently. I have been resisting the urge to write you for months. I am not one for disagreement or debate, so I usually avoid inviting people into my life. I just feel very strongly about a particular issue and have been troubled by your viewpoints. I feel burdened with the need to reach out to you, with no animosity or disrespect, in regards to it.

I agree almost 100% with you on most issues on which you have written. I am vehemently against abortion and euthanasia. I consider adultery abhorrent and generally concur with your views on modern secular psychology. I am a “straddler” on the capital punishment issue, but I feel God will reveal that to me in time.

I am a Christian. I was raised in a fairly “functional” Christian home. My father is a social worker, my mother a nurse, and they both love me very much and gave me a solid upbringing. By the grace of God, I have endured no “major” traumas in my life. I have a very close relationship with Jesus Christ, I am an active member of a spirit-filled, charismatic church, I have close Christian friends, I spend significant time reading Scripture, I am striving to be a true prayer warrior intercessing for family, friends, church, children and our nation and have seen many of my prayers answered, I have a great relationship with my parents, etc., etc. I say all of this not to boast or turn attention to myself, but to give you an idea of who I am, because I also happen to be gay.

My partner of five years is a devout Christian as well. We pray together, worship together, have devotional time together, and focus on Jesus Christ as the center and cornerstone of our relationship. We are completely monogamous and have dedicated our relationship and ourselves as individuals to God. We would absolutely be married if it were legal. We have prayed about our “lifestyle” (as some would call it), have opened our hearts to God’s leading, and neither of us feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit that our relationship is a sin. We have made other extremely difficult decisions based on the leading of the Holy Spirit. For example, both of us quit very lucrative jobs because we were making the pursuit of money and the approval of the secular world our gods. We do not make anywhere near the amount of money we were making before and have had to change our lifestyle dramatically, but we are now where God wants us to be (or at least closer to it!).

I just don’t understand why people in the church-good, knowledgeable, intelligent, kind Christians like yourself-continue to persecute and shut out gay and lesbian people based on passages of Scripture that are very much open to an interpretation very different from the traditional stance the church has always taken. I would expound on this myself, but, despite the research I have done on this topic, I do not consider myself in any way to be a Bible scholar. Therefore, I am going to rely on someone who is more educated than me to elaborate on this subject. Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, has written an article that concisely and accurately states what I have always believed to be true. I beg of you to read this article, if only to see what the “other side” is saying (even though I am sure you are well-versed on that already!). Think of it as an educational, journalistic endeavor. See www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html

I respect and admire you so much. It deeply troubles me that someone with such knowledge, conviction, and clear thinking adheres to the idea that no practicing gay or lesbian person can be a Christian in a close, right relationship with God. Whether you believe me or not, I am proof that there is such a thing.

I truly appreciate and value your time. If you made it this far, and have read this entire e-mail, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for valuing a stranger enough to read her “two cents worth.” I pray for you and those involved in your ministry and for the important work you are doing. Thank you again for your time.

Your sister in Christ,

Shannon

answered by Randy Alcorn (All names and identifying information have been changed to protect the individual)

Shannon,

I wish we could talk face to face so you could hear my heart for you. In your letter you said, “I just don’t understand why people in the church—good, knowledgeable, intelligent, kind Christians like yourself—continue to persecute and shut out gay and lesbian people based on passages of Scripture that are very much open to an interpretation.”

First, if someone is persecuting you, they are not being kind. This does not mean they are wrong in what they believe about homosexual behavior, but it does mean that they are wrong in not bearing the fruit of the Spirit. Some people are just hateful. Someone may be accurate in telling a woman “abortion will kill your baby,” but they may do it in either a loving or a hateful way.

It’s important that you understand that just because someone disagrees with you, even if they may think you are making sinful choices, it does not mean they are persecuting you. Sometimes I believe things not because I want to, but because I feel compelled to. It would be much easier for me if I believed, for instance, that abortion doesn’t kill children. It would be much easier if I kept silent about it. (Since you’re prolife, you probably understand that.) I may say to a woman “abortion will kill your baby” in the most loving way I know how, but from her point of view she may think I’m being hateful because of the horrible implications of what I’m saying, and of what that means about what she is doing.

It would be much easier, and it would make me feel much better to just say “No problem, Shannon, I love you and that means I’ll say however you want to live is just fine with God.” Frankly, Shannon, you seem extremely likeable, and I felt a kinship with you as you wrote. You seem like the kind of person I’d have loved to have as a sister. (I grew up with one brother and always wished I’d had a sister, so I’ve sort of adopted some since then.) The last thing I want to do is hurt or offend you. But our job is not just to help each other feel better, but to help each other be better. If I truly love you, and I do, I will come to you as Jesus did, in grace and truth. Not truth without grace, not grace without truth, but with both.

Let me clarify I’m not homophobic, meaning I do not fear homosexuals. (Homophobic is now construed by many to mean disagreeing with homosexuals, an interesting twist on the real meaning.) I attended a meeting where dozens were present, and I was the only one who hadn’t lived as a homosexual. I didn’t feel a need to sit near an exit! Yes, I disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle (most of them did too), but I felt no hatred or revulsion toward anyone there, including those still involved in it.

I invited a lesbian abortion activist to lunch a few years ago and we sat for four hours in honest dialogue. She did not repulse me. I found her very likeable. I recently talked with her on the phone, and I consider her a friend even today. (She has walked away from her lesbian relationship and her pro-abortion activism, but at the time she was immersed in both.)

I am very familiar with Mel White, whose website you referred me to. In fact he was involved in youth ministry here in Portland many years ago. I don’t know him personally, but I received a letter from him years ago (a letter to Oregon pastors) that I believe was very twisted and misrepresented both the Scriptures and a number of things that were happening at the time. While I have appreciated some things I’ve heard Mel White say, I have to be honest and say I don’t trust his ability to separate his claims about the Bible or the Christian life from his own personal experiences. He has built his new “ministry” around a series of rationalizations and justifications of choices he has made, some of which dishonor the Lord he claims to serve. I feel no hate for him as I say this, none whatsoever. I also do not hate the people who perform abortions. But I still believe they are dishonoring God.

I read the whole Walter Wink article carefully, making notes in the margins. I have often read similar things, many when I was researching my first book in the early ’80s (Christians in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution—recently updated and republished as Restoring Sexual Sanity; be glad to send you a copy if you want one). Wink takes the same approach to biblical interpretation many people do. He starts with his modern beliefs—including the currently popular notion that homosexuality is a matter of genes and destiny as opposed to choosing to succumb to a temptation—and works backwards, trying to read some of them into Scripture. He refers to texts such as 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 saying they are “ambiguous.” But I know of no one prior to our place and time who would have thought these were “unclear,” as if the real issue might just be sex for hire, not homosexuality. I believe the texts themselves are much clearer than he admits.

When Dr. Wink moves on to the unequivocal condemnations, he dismisses these, stating as if it were fact why he thinks the Hebrews considered homosexuality an abomination. He cites population issues, which Scripture never does. God has a created order in which He has decreed that the only proper sexual intimacies occur within a heterosexual legally binding marriage. Now, we may not like that, but that’s the truth, regardless of any interpretive gymnastics we might attempt to get away from it.

Dr. Wink clearly believes that the source of the law was chauvinistic Hebrew men, not God Himself. Well, in that case, why bother explaining anything away? Why not just say “they were a bunch of pigs and God had nothing to do with this, so let’s just disregard it”? He says “Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding….” Yes. But instead of considering that perhaps that modern understanding is wrong and Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and therefore right), Dr. Wink is patronizing and demeaning in discrediting the validity of Paul’s objections to homosexuality.

Well, Paul either spoke the truth or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then why not just turn our backs on it and admit that’s what we’re doing? But if he did, then we need to come to terms with what God’s Word is really saying.

Dr. Wink also makes various false claims and gross generalizations such as “adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less sinful than homosexual activity. Yet no one is calling for [adulterers’] stoning. And we ordain adulterers.”

This is false on many levels. First, who is he talking about? I do not think heterosexual adultery is less sinful than homosexual activity. And I pastored and taught ethics for years at the very kind of churches and colleges he would assume believe and teach such things. He also implies people are calling for the stoning of homosexuals, yet I’ve never once heard anyone do that. And his comment “we ordain adulterers” is entirely irrelevant. (If his point is, many churches operate with hypocrisy, well of course they do, but that hardly functions as an argument for his case.) Known child molesters have been ordained too, but that has nothing to do with whether homosexual acts are wrong in the sight of God. I am convinced, Shannon, that any honest examination of Scriptural teaching shows clearly that they are.

Your letter seems to take refuge in the fact that Dr. Wink is a scholar. But many scholars are wrong. I can give you the names of countless scholars who believe and teach that the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage. Calling on scholars is much like lawyers calling on expert doctors and psychologists as witnesses. You can always find someone to back up the point you want to believe, or want to make the jury believe. But it doesn’t matter that the doctor has degrees—his testimony could still be wrong. Dr. Wink makes some valid points, of course, but I take issue with many claims he makes.

For instance, his comments about Song of Solomon being a celebration of fornication are off base. He says “the Bible has no sexual ethic.” I disagree. His pleas to “live by the love ethic of Jesus” sounds wonderful, but if the actual teachings of Scripture aren’t our guide, we will simply decree anything to be “Christlike” if we want to do it and “unchristlike” if it makes us uncomfortable. (Hence we, not Christ, are our own authorities.) He seems to utterly fail to understand what Scripture calls the wickedness of the heart, our tendency toward self-deception and demonic deception. He has adopted the spirit of the age and placed himself above Scripture as its judge.

Where is Dr. Wink going to take this? Maybe he still believes adultery is wrong, I’m not sure. But if his wife doesn’t meet his needs, I could see him developing an ethical framework justifying adultery, then writing another paper giving a scholarly defense of adultery from the Bible, showing how twisted traditionalists have made us think the Bible actually condemned adultery, when in fact it really doesn’t. (Or arguing that even where the Bible condemns adultery, it is wrong because it didn’t have the benefit of our modern psychological understanding of why adultery can actually be a good thing.)

One thought on the issue of unfairness. I know people who are handicapped, who will never walk again in this life or never see. Is that unfair? In one sense, yes. Most other people can walk and see, why not them? Is it unfair to have a sexual attraction which God says you cannot righteously act out? Well, it is extremely difficult. But it is certainly not impossible. (In fact, I know people with very strong heterosexual desires and others with very strong homosexual desires who live in lifelong sexual abstinence.)

Those who think that having a genetic root therefore makes a thing legitimate should consider the research suggesting there may be “a rapist’s gene,” that men who commit rape tend to have certain chromosomal patterns. This may or may not prove true, but suppose for a moment it did. Would you consider it a legitimate thing for a man to commit rape just because he has a genetic condition that gives him a much stronger temptation toward rape than someone else has?

You may feel that’s a poor analogy because rape hurts someone and consenting homosexual acts don’t. Yet God condemns not only adultery, but fornication, premarital sex between consenting people. Consent and lack of betraying someone else don’t automatically make a behavior right. We should see the larger picture of a God whose holiness is violated by our sin. And certainly His heart is grieved when His children choose to violate His standards of holiness. We should ask not only if our choices hurt ourselves and others, but if they hurt our Lord. As I feel sorry for someone who will never walk again, I feel very sorry for those who want to be married, but have no desire to be married to the only ones God (not just society) permits them to marry, those of the opposite gender. But my sorrow and empathy do not negate the objective teaching of Scripture. It is never loving people to mislead them into thinking that God permits what He in fact condemns.

There are many things Scripture teaches that disturb me, Shannon, that I would rather not believe. One of them is the doctrine of hell. I find it very troubling and difficult to think of eternal suffering. I have a friend, a writer, who has come to the conclusion that because God is more loving than he is, and he would never send someone to hell, therefore God never would, and there cannot be such a thing as an eternal hell.

Well, the problem is, God is God and we’re not. My job isn’t to try to pretend the Bible says what I wish it said, but to believe what it does in fact say. If there’s a conflict between my way of thinking and what the Bible says, instead of trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit with my beliefs, I need to change my beliefs to make them conform to what God says. That’s why I believe in an eternal hell, election, and other doctrines that once troubled me and in some cases still do.

In this sense, I think an atheist homosexual is being much more honest about the Bible than Mel White. He will tell you that the Bible clearly and consistently condemns all sex outside of marriage, including homosexual relations. He simply chooses to reject that teaching. But Mel White and others are often unwilling to outright reject Scripture. They twist it to fit their inclinations and thinking and preferences. (I have done that in the past myself with various doctrines, and probably still do without realizing it.)

Dr. Wink finally gets very honest near the end of the article when he says, “Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.” There—at last he hits the nail on the head. I believe the Bible is correct. He believes it is not, and that is the basis for his own moral conclusions.

So, Shannon, it comes down to this—do you agree with Dr. Wink (and with me) that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior? Secondly, do you agree with Dr. Wink that the Bible is dead wrong? Or do you agree with me that it is right? You can’t have it both ways. If you’re appealing to Dr. Wink’s arguments, you’re ultimately appealing to his disbelief in the Scriptures.

This I know, Shannon, and it grieves me to say it, but I must because I am commanded to speak the truth in love: Christ has something much higher for you than disobedience to His decrees and principles. He wants something great for you, something that brings him glory and brings you joy. And whether or not you recognize it, if you are in fact engaged in sex outside of the only kind of marriage God recognizes, you are living in sin. If I am living in sin, whether in greed or pride or lust, my sin may very well be as bad in God’s sight as yours. But that doesn’t mean that yours isn’t real. (I search my own heart, asking God to make me aware of hidden sins, and to give me the courage to repent of them.)

I wish I could meet you face to face and put my arms around you. I wish I could make you believe that I love you, and far more importantly, that Jesus loves you just as you are, but loves you too much to let you stay that way. He has not put his decrees there as baseball bats to bludgeon you with, but as guardrails to keep you from plunging off the cliff and destroying yourself. If I was a doctor and you came to me saying you were bothered that someone had given you a diagnosis of cancer, I would hope that I could give you what you wanted to hear: “clean bill of health—no cancer.” But if the test results showed cancer, a good doctor wouldn’t do that. He would try to save your life by telling you the truth and suggesting the necessary treatment. I have wept for you, asking God to show this to you. I know that’s not what you want to hear. But I believe it’s what you need to hear.

You strike me as sincere, Shannon. But I also believe you are deceived. Satan is a liar, and he is whispering lies in your ear. He is convincing you that because you believe most of the right things and engage in many Christian practices and are sincere, therefore you are justified in doing what God says you should not.

I ask you to take a fresh look at God’s Word, not trying to back up what an ungodly culture has taught you to believe, but asking God to show you what is really true. He never commands us to do anything—or to abstain from anything—that He does not give us the power to carry out. There is the cancer of sin in your life—but there is corrective surgery to deal with it. Confession, repentance, and transformation of living obediently, and getting help from supportive, loving Christians who believe the Word of God and seek to follow Jesus even when it’s costly, even when it breaks your heart. Sometimes the joy doesn’t come until after we’ve walked the path of heartbreak. (Speaking of heartbreak, would you ask Jesus if some of your choices are breaking His heart? I must ask the same, and I do.)

I am not saying you should change your behavior to earn God’s grace. You can’t earn God’s grace—it’s a free gift. You don’t deserve God’s grace any more than I do. If we deserved God’s grace, we wouldn’t need it. But if we embrace the grace of God, it will break our hearts to engage in the sins of the heart and the outward behavior that sent Him to the cross for us. We want to live like what we are—”If anyone be in Christ he is a new creation; the old has gone, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17) . What you need is exactly what I need, every day and every hour—an infusion of God’s sovereign grace. His grace alone empowers us to live holy lives. I pray you will give yourself over to His grace. I encourage you to read carefully Romans 3-8. God’s Word has an authority that mine, Dr. Wink’s and Mel White’s certainly do not. Don’t ask what others think—read and ask God what He thinks. Because that alone is true.

There are many people—I know a number personally—who have broken out of homosexual relationships. I know this isn’t what you want, but it is what God wants. (I base this on the teaching of Scripture, not speculation.) And if I can be of help to you, please let me know. You are likely familiar with them, but if you’re not, here are some addresses, phone numbers and websites of groups reaching out to and ministering to people in your exact situation. [Exodus International, PO Box 540119, Orlando, FL 32854; www.exodus.to or Love in Action, PO Box 171444, Memphis, TN 38187, 901-767-6700, www.loveinaction.org]

From your notes, I feel I know you, Shannon. And I want you to know that I love you. You are worth anything that I could do for you, and much more. Jesus has done for you what I can’t, and wants to do for you more besides. Please ask Him to show you what’s true and right and what He really wants for you—not what you want and what others want for you, but what He wants. Listen to His Word for the answers, and call upon Him to show you the truth and empower you to live it.

I am praying for you right now, and will continue to in the coming days.

Investing in Eternity,

Randy Alcorn

Homosexuality and Christianity: Can the two really mix? Can a practicing homosexual be a Christian? Those are the questions that smack us in the face a lot these days.

Homosexuality and Christianity

In order to come to the right conclusions on this matter, we must ask a few other relevant questions. First of all, is the Bible a true and faithful record of both the will and plan of God Almighty? To that I must answer yes, absolutely. You may disagree. If so, then until you come to terms with the fact that the Bible is the very Word of God and carries the weight of His Divine authority, we don’t have much common ground to discuss this matter on.

The second question we must ask, once the first one is settled, is what does the Bible have to say about homosexuality?

Many will undoubtedly think this article to be unkind, un-loving, or the favorite term of these days, “hateful”…but if the first important question is answered right, then the second can be clearly seen, then there is no question as to the original question: Can a Christian be a homosexual or is homosexuality a sin?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Bible and Homosexuality
What are the arguments against gay marriage?
Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Now, let’s let God speak through His Word, the Bible…

God’s Creative Plan

First of all, notice that the first married couple on the planet was male and female. That is, God set the pattern for marriage and family up in the beginning, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:27-28.

Then the details of God’s creation of man and woman are revealed in a parenthetical passage, chapter 2, and God’s intention for marriage and family is clearly revealed: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” –Genesis 2:24. Many might read the passage and say that Adam was just proclaiming this because he was speaking in verse 23 and the Bible never specifies who says verse 24, but I believe that if we look closely, we can see that most likely God made this proclamation directly, but if not it is still expressed as his clear intention because this is God’s inspired Word.

I believe that God declares verse 24 because Adam did not have a father and a mother to leave, so how or why could he make such a proclamation? Secondly, the sense of this verse is that of an emphatic Divine declaration, which explains the “one flesh” relationship. Can I stop here and say that the human anatomy points out very clearly the intention of the intimate parts, and that is not exclusive to the human race. In order to keep this from really digressing or insulting the reader’s intelligence, I’ll say no more on the anatomy issue.

What was Sodom and Gomorrah’s primary sin? Homosexuality – See for yourself:

Next, please direct your attention to a passage of scripture which says, “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” –Genesis 13:13. Now, if no other references were made to the men of Sodom, we would have to admit that this could mean they were guilty of any type of sin, and actually they were probably guilty of a whole host of sins, because sin produces a digression into more sin and more wickedness, but we must note that whatever sins these men were guilty of, the Word of God says they were “wicked” (strong term) and “sinners before the Lord exceedingly” (more strong language).

Then as we progress into the book we come to chapter 18 and verses 20 & 21, “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” I have to stop here and point out God’s mercy and longsuffering. God knew what was going on in these cities, He’s God! But He is so merciful and willing for every sinner to repent of their sin and trust Him that He sent His ambassadors, two angels, to observe first hand what was happening.

Anyway, here is what happened next (after Abraham intercedes for Sodom), “And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.” -Genesis 19:1-13.

Now, I have heard many say that it is not clear that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. I beg to differ! Their sin was homosexuality among other things. If we read what is said in its context and understand it that way, we cannot but conclude that these men of Sodom wanted to have sexual knowledge of the 2 angels of God. Notice that Lot met them at the gate and began to immediately plead with them to stay with him rather than abide in the street all night. Why? Because he knew the intentions of the wicked men of Sodom.

Follow the story now. The angels agree to stay with Lot in his home. They have a feast and everything is fine, until all of the men of the city, old and young gather at the door and demand to see these men that came to Lots house that night. I have heard some say that because verse 4 ends by saying, “…all the people from every quarter:” that there were women and children present therefore the context does not restrict itself to homosexuality. Well, ok, even if there were women and children present, sexual deviancy knows no bounds once it has past a certain point. These men were exceedingly wicked in God’s sight! Do you think they care who is around when they practice their sin of homosexuality? Nope. Besides, the entire context still points to homosexuality being the clear visible sin of the people. They went on to ask in they could “know” the men. Some so called scholars claim that this was just the common term “know” and that these folks just wanted to greet these strangers and learn who they were, but read the context…Lot knew their intentions so he slams the door in their faces and begs them to “do not so wickedly”!

If these “friendly townsfolk” just wanted to get to know these strangers on a friendly casual level, why did Lot jump on the defense and slam the door in their face and beg them not to do so wickedly? The answer is that he knew their intentions were homosexual knowledge of these men, and get this: The Bible never specifically commands against homosexuality in a clear spelled out manner prior to these events, but Lot understood that it was exceedingly sinful behavior! Lot knew that homosexuality was wrong!

Also, if these were just friendly townsfolk wanting to get to know these strangers on a social level and sip coffee and eat doughnuts, then why did the wicked thought cross Lot’s mind to offer his 2 virgin daughters to these sexual predators in order to satisfy their burning lust?

You can’t take an honest look at this passage and tell me that this is not what was happening! Some contend that if that was the case, then it proves that these men were not homosexual because Lot offered his daughters. “What would homosexuals want with his daughters?”

You have to understand that Lot was backed in a corner and obviously wasn’t thinking clearly in the first place or he would have tried to protect his whole family and the strangers in the first place, but he had grown so accustomed to the sin of the city that he even began to think on a depraved sinful level of reasoning himself and would do almost anything to get these people to back down.

Please don’t get the impression that I am taking up for Lot. He certainly is to blame for putting himself and his family in this situation in the first place because in Genesis 13:13, that we quoted earlier, God plainly states that these people were wicked, and in the very verse before we are told that this was the place that Lot chose to dwell. So, he was by no means innocent.

Then notice that the men of the city make it even clearer that their intentions were evil, by telling Lot that they would do worse to him than they had planned for these men. Need we say more?

Also notice that in verse 8, when Lot is begging the men not to do so wickedly, he says, “for therefore came they under my roof.” Now anyone who knows anything about context, knows that when you see the word “therefore”, you have to ask yourself what it is “there for”. “Therefore” points us back to what Lot has just said. He is saying that because he knew the wicked intentions of the townspeople, he begged the strangers not to stay in the street all night, because he knew what would happen to them.

Then the angels pulled Lot out of danger, smote the men with blindness, and they still tried to find a way in the door so that they could gratify their sinful desires!

The angels told Lot to get his family and his stuff and get out because they were definitely going to destroy the city. Keep in mind that they were originally sent there just to investigate, but it was obvious now that they could not even find ten righteous men in the city, for God vowed to Abraham that He would not destroy the city if He could find just 10 righteous men.

The prevalent sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was obviously homosexuality.

The Clear Command of Scripture

Now we jump into a time warp into a time when God is laying out the ground rules for the children of Israel. He dictates to Moses what is sinful and what is not sinful, or what pleases God and what does not. God is very precise and very clear in this area of scripture, so pay attention. Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.” It could not be clearer that to “lie with mankind as with womankind” is speaking of sexual behavior and specifically condemning homosexuality.

The passage is crystal clear. There should never be a misunderstanding of what this verse is saying.

Leviticus 20:13 emphasizes the seriousness of this sin and its intended penalty, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Now let me be clear here that I am not advocating in any way, violence against homosexuals today.

You say, “But if you believe that God has pronounced judgment on this sin, then you are saying that.” No, I am not, because we live under a different system of government than they of the Old Testament, but God still has a way of carrying out His death sentences, and today, sadly, they come in the form of sexually transmitted disease and AIDS.

All sin also brings death to the soul and spirit of man because the will of God is pushed away by indulging in something that is an abomination to God. This includes all sexual sin, not just homosexuality, so if you’re “shacking up”, committing adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage), or other sexually deviant behaviors which we care not even to mention. We will reap what we sow in this life, and though we may ask forgiveness and get it, the scars are irreparable.

What does the New Testament have to say?

Romans 1:24-32 states, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

This passage clearly speaks of deviant sexual behavior, more specifically, homosexuality. Verse 24 tells us that God gave them up to uncleanness.

Does this mean that God made them do this? Certainly not, but notice it says “through the lusts of their own hearts”. God merely got weary of dealing with them like He did many times with the nation of Israel and gave them up unto their own sins so that they would reap the fruit of the seeds of sin that they were sowing and when Israel was brought to their lowest point by their disobedience, many times they came back to God.

Notice how the text says that they “dishonor their own bodies between themselves”. Then it goes on to say they changed the truth of God into a lie. That is exactly what a person does who denies that the Word of God teaches clearly against homosexuality. They turn the truth of God into a lie.

Look at verses 26 & 27: “…for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…”

Let me pause here and say that the Greek word translated unseemly there means “an indecency” or “a shame”. It is painfully clear that the context of this passage is talking about men and women dishonoring their own bodies in acts of homosexuality.

It is crystal clear, yet many “scholars” and church going homosexual advocates deny it. Well, they are addressed in verse 28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, (that is the true Biblical God – my explanation) God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” That word “convenient” means “becoming” or “fit”. They are so depraved that they are doing things that aren’t fit for a creature of God to do.

Conclusion:

The God of the Bible who is a God of love, but He is also a God of righteousness. He has laid out His plan, His purpose and His will in His Word, the Bible. It is very clear that God’s plan does not in any fashion include homosexuality.

Homosexuality, like so many other behaviors running rampant today is clearly sinful and abominable in God’s sight, therefore one cannot possibly be a Christian (Christ like) and be a homosexual at the same time, just like a man cannot be a murderer and a Christian (Christ like) at the same time.

But there is hope! If you are curious as to what that hope is click here to take a simple test that will tell you the good news at the end of the story: Take Test and Find out Good News

There are many groups that will help you to overcome homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a choice. Here is one of the best:

Exodus International is dedicated to helping people overcome homosexuality.

Books helping people understand and deal properly with the issue of homosexuality:

This book is written directly to the person struggling with homosexuality:

Desires In Conflict
A practical and informative book for women who struggle with lesbianism (homosexuality):

Out of Egypt
Hope and freedom for males sturggling with homosexuality or for those who know someone who is.

You Don’t Have To Be Gay
Mike Haley of Focus on the Family answers the questions most often asked about homosexuality:

101 Frequently Asked Questions about Homosexuality

Out of Egypt
Jeanette Howard

You Don’t Have to Be Gay
Jeff Konrad

Helping People Step Out of Homosexuality…
Frank Worthen

101 Frequently Asked Questions About…
Mike Haley

A Christian perspective on homosexuality…
Daniel W Puls

Beyond Gay
David Morrison

Coming Out of Homosexuality
Bob Davies

Counseling the Homosexual
Michael R. Saia

Craving for Love/ Relationship Addiction…
Briar Whitehead

Crisis in Masculinity
Leanne Payne

Dark Obsession
Timothy Dailey

Homosexuality and the Politics
Jeffrey Satinover

Homosexuality
Stanton L. Jones

But there is hope

If you are curious as to what that hope is click here to take a simple test that will tell you the good news at the end of the story:

Take Test and Find out Good News

What you see on the screen plays second fiddle to the message a movie puts forth.

Gay Cowboys And Other Hollywood Philosophies. What you see is what you get is not all you get. So, what else do you get?

The whole country is talking about the film Brokeback Mountain and it has created no small stir. On a Sunday morning TV editorial Charles Osgood pointed out that Hollywood is not tying to put forth a gay liberal agenda but rather are interested only in the bottom line – money. Although not inferred, it sounded like capturing the minds of adults or poisoning the minds of our youth was merely an incidental that happened on the way to the bank.

For over thirty years I have warned that it is not just what we see on films that can influence us. Each film has a philosophy attached to it whether it was intended or not. Sex, violence and profanity are blaringly obvious but subtle philosophies are not. Today the philosophies are becoming more blatant and are far less subtle. The race for box office cash is not all that fuels this raw open ended kind of expression in the film industry.

The mention of any kind of control (even self control) is met with cries of violated first amendment rights and the old freedom of expression hype. It may seem a bit over used but remains true nevertheless that Hollywood has never bothered to discern the difference between freedom and license.

A recent poll discovered that only one out of a thousand Americans knows all of the rights our constitution provides for them. On average the poll said that most people can name only one of our constitutional rights. Contrasted with that fact, it was discovered that the same people could name three or more of the characters in the TV animated sitcom, “The Simpsons.” The bottom line says that movie makers know what their rights are but the movie viewing public either doesn’t have a clue or they just don’t care.

Gay Cowboys And Other Hollywood Philosophies

Anyone who thinks TV and Movies don’t influence our society has to be living in another country. Yet even that is not true. Another poll recently discovered that one of the reasons that almost every major country in the world hates Americans is because of the film industry. All they know about America is what they see in the movies. Immorality, frivolous romance, rebellion, crime, gay cowboys and general mayhem is all they see. Any country trying to keep order and develop would naturally reject this kind of example and that is exactly what they do.

Could we get Hollywood’s attention on this, not so far but maybe we could catch them on the way to the bank and let them know. It is estimated that Americans will spend fifteen years on average of their entire lives watching TV and Movies. Perhaps it is not reasonable to think John Q television watching public is going to take any time out of their fifteen years to grab a few Hollywood producers on their way to the bank. Maybe they could protest a bit during the commercials which comprise about five of the fifteen years of their TV and movie watching lives.

Actors and others in the film industry are paid huge sums of money to do and say things most Americans don’t believe should ever be seen or uttered. Are they showing us our mind, or is art coaxing life rather than imitating it. I suppose when actors or thespians are offered small fortunes to behave and talk badly they must think they are living right. They too probably laugh all the way to the bank. Most Americans don’t act like actors but Hollywood can afford to make them act anyway they choose.

It all seems Ok if the end (the trip to the bank) seems to justify the means. Some Americans are a bit sick of Hollywood suggesting how to live instead of depicting how they actually live. The Bible isn’t sick of anything but has a lot to say about how sick human behavior can become. Perhaps it is best said by the bible regardless of whether Hollywood is listening or not. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

Rev Michael Bresciani ……

Rev. Michael Bresciani is the author of two Christian books and the writer of hundreds of articles both online and in print.