Biblical response to 'I'm a Christian, but I'm not...' video

Dr. Bobby Conway (a.k.a the "One Minute Apologist") offers a biblical response to the popular BuzzFeed video:

An atheist voices support for Kim Davis

Well, not so much support for Kim Davis as disdain for the government responsible for locking her up.

Libertarian atheist Stephen Molyneux has never been shy when it comes to criticizing Christianity, but he does admire people who remain true to their convictions. His personal beliefs and anti-Christian worldview aside, I can appreciate his position on this issue, and I think some of the points he makes are more insightful than many I have heard from Christians. Take a look:

Romans 1:28

What else is there to say upon seeing a gay "marriage" proposal taking place in a "church" service?

The modern "Christian" position on "gay marriage"

Russell Moore vs. Roy Moore: Whose law?

"For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us."
- Isaiah 33:22

Ours is no longer a nation of laws. Individual judges long ago assumed the power to impose their will on the public, and that is exactly what Judge Ginny Granade of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama did last month. On January 23, Granade ruled that the Alabama

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act are "unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process Grounds." She further ordered Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange not to enforce those laws, which simply asserted that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in turn ordered probate judges in the state to ignore Granade's ruling. His reasoning was grounded in the fact that the ruling only applied to Attorney General Strange, and since probate judges are the ones charged with issuing marriage licences, the constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" remained intact. Besides, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that marriage is a state issue, and since the people of Alabama had already spoken, the issue was settled.

Russell D. Moore disagrees. He thinks Chief Justice Moore should either comply with Judge Granade or resign. In a written statement released to Baptist Press, he said:

As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land.

In a Christian ethic, there is a time for civil disobedience in cases of unjust laws. That's why, for instance, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail. In the case of judges and state Supreme Court justices, though, civil disobedience, even when necessary, cannot happen in their roles as agents of the state. Religious freedom and conscience objections must be balanced with a state's obligation to discharge the law. We shouldn't have officials breaking the law, but civil servants don't surrender their conscience simply by serving in government. While these details are being worked out, in the absence of any conscience protections, a government employee faced with a decision of violating his conscience or upholding the law, would need to resign and protest against it as a citizen if he could not discharge the duties of his office required by law in good conscience.

While Russell Moore would argue Romans 13 dictates that the chief justice should submit to the governing authority, Roy Moore, as a sitting judge, is also a governing authority. The question then arises: which "law of the land" is to be obeyed?

On one hand, a federal judge has single-handedly nullified Alabama's state constitution on a whim. On the other hand, a State Supreme Court justice has sworn to uphold that same constitution. In addition, nothing in the U.S. Constitution grants federal judges the power to strike down state laws. (I know that kind of talk is considered heresy today, but these United States were once considered "free and independent.") So, which is the more legitimate law?

In regard to Judge Granade's ruling, Russell Moore would like to see Roy Moore "resign and protest against it as a citizen." Well, Judge Moore is already a citizen. As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he is in a much better position to protest against unlawful judicial decisions, protecting those within his jurisdiction against an overreaching authority who would order others to do what God forbids.

God's law remains in effect. It would seem to me that the more legitimate law in the civil realm, the law to be obeyed, is the one under which "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad" (Romans 13:3).

Same-sex "marriage" opens the door to acceptance of pedophilia

I have always believed that the "equality" claim regarding the issue of gay "marriage" is misleading. If equality really is the goal, then the push would be to give everyone the same rights, regardless of the nature of their respective relationships, and that would have to include "intergenerational intimacy." Homosexual activists who wish to be consistent cannot consider pedophilia wrong because every single argument they have used in support of same-sex "marriage" can also be used to support every other possible arrangement one can imagine.

That is exactly why we are now seeing a push to normalize pedophilia. The Telegraph reports:

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males," said the presentation. "At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children."

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is "natural and normal" was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Homosexuals performed their "marriage equality" routine on the world stage to uproarious applause. It's almost time for the next act, and the pedophiles are already waiting in the wings.

Asking Christians to Violate Their Conscience

"You conservative Christians who are complaining about being forced to provide services to same-sex couples need to grow up. If Jesus wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for a gay wedding, then neither should you."

That pretty much sums up the message of a recent article in The Daily Beast by Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt. The article was written in response to legislation passed in Arizona (which has since been vetoed) allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples (and, presumably, polygamists, pedophiles, etc.) on the basis that providing such services would constitute a violation of conscience.

According to Powers and Merritt:

Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian's conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don't believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist "affirmed" their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.

The authors are implying two things in their analysis. First, by saying "nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience," they are suggesting there are times when it becomes necessary to force people to violate their conscience. Current laws and court cases do just that.

Second, since one's conscience can only be violated if one is forced to affirm something in which one doesn't believe, and since providing services to same-sex couples in no way affirms their lifestyle (or, if you prefer today's accepted terminology, "the way God made them"), then there is nothing about which one can complain. They seem to be saying, "You conservative Christians have already lost on this issue, so the sooner you get used to it, the better."

Strangely, conservative Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights. It's not that these rights don't matter. Rather, they should be a secondary issue for Christians. Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not.

Well, a lot of Christians would argue that it does. Romans 1 comes to mind. After all, what is a gay "wedding" if not a celebration and endorsement of sin?

Veto aside, the legislation would have been completely useless in defending religious liberty. It had a built-in loophole that allowed government to "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" if it could be demonstrated that one's exercise of religion prohibited the "furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." What exactly is a "compelling governmental interest"? That's one of those vague terms lawmakers like to slip into pieces of legislation with the intention of having it clarified in future court cases, usually resulting in the growth of government power. Nevertheless, simply because a few conservative Christians viewed initial passage of this legislation as a win for their side, the gay rights supporters were upset.

Never mind the fact that there are plenty of other business owners who would step up to accommodate same-sex couples denied service by closed-minded Christian bigots. This is about tolerance, dang it, and we simply won't tolerate intolerance!

That anyone, especially professing Christians, would have a problem with defending private property rights is very telling. We are no longer a society seeking justice and equality; we are a society that seeks to remedy any perceived social "injustice" by granting one particular and very small group of people special rights and protections above everyone else.

It is clear that Powers and Merritt see themselves as the stronger sister and brother, and they are only trying to assure the rest of us, those of weaker faith, that it's OK to go against our conscience if our conscience is misinformed. They conclude:

Rather than protecting the conscience rights of Christians, this [legislation] looks a lot more like randomly applying religious belief in a way that discriminates against and marginalizes one group of people, while turning a blind eye to another group. It's hard to believe that Jesus was ever for that.

No, what's hard to believe is that two Christians would ignore 1 Corinthians 8 and chastise their brothers and sisters in Christ. Their problem isn't with government forcing Christians to go against their principles; the problem is that Christians aren't going along with a clear conscience.

Christians Have a Choice to Make: God or Country?

We Christians have a choice to make: will we follow our God or our country? Douglas Wilson addresses this issue, especially as it pertains to so-called "gay marriage":

Those believers who have had an ordinary love of country, coupled with a naive (and very unbiblical) belief that America could never become an idolatrous adversary to the kingdom of God, are the kind of people who would be quick to acknowledge on paper that if we had to choose between God and country, we should always and everywhere choose God. But having ticked that box, they murmur to themselves that they are very glad that they could never be called upon to make that choice. Sorry, but here it is. Right on top of us.

Our nation is a nation just like all the others, and we can spiral into spiritual apostasy just like all the others. We are now more than halfway down the line of statues in the royal hall of Charn, where the look of our earlier nobility has vanished and we are just three elections away from the coldest forms of despair. Just think — all over the world, drone strikes making the world safe for sodomy.

As a nation like all others, we do have the option of repentance as well. But the first sin requiring the deepest repentance will have to be that damn-fool notion of American exceptionalism.

This is why pastors have a particular and pressing duty here. If this despotic modern state is the idol of our age — and it is — then pastors have a pressing duty to prepare their parishioners to resist it. We have a duty to prepare our people to refuse to bow down when they hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer (Dan. 3:5). Those instruments seem odd to us today, and so does Nebuchadnezzar's statue, but you may depend upon it — at the time, bowing down to that statue to that music at that time was about as mainstream as you could possibly get, and the only people left standing were the extremists and weirdos.

John warns Christians as little children, telling them to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). This will be a pressing danger when the idolatry is mainstream, when paying your mortgage depends on conforming, when all the networks are asking what the big deal is, when we can't buy or sell without offering that pinch of incense to the emperor, and the music has been playing for a good minute and a half now. People are starting to look. You see an official in the back writing down your name.

Be sure to read the entire post.

'Tolerance' in Action

Activists like these do not seek tolerance. They want nothing less than complete acceptance of their lifestyle as well as the elimination of any and all dissenting opinions.

Could Gay 'Marriage' Lead to Father's Marrying Their Sons?

On the issue of same-sex "marriage," actor Jeremy Irons admitted to HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps that he doesn't have an opinion one way or another. Irons did, however, raise an issue that is sure to invite criticism from gay "marriage" supporters:


Why couldn't a father marry his son? What would be the moral basis for denying such an arrangement? The lack of answers to questions like this shows just how little reasoning has gone into the issue on the part of the tolerance crowd.

Want to Defend Marriage? Get the Government Out of It

(Cross-posted at Examiner.com)

As the Supreme Court mulls over the issue of "gay marriage", some Christians have long since grown weary of the brouhaha. They are tired of listening to the sanctimonious diatribes of those who preach tolerance without the slightest idea of the meaning of the word. They are sick of the complaints of "conservatives" who think it's actually possible to save marriage through the political process. They are bothered by those who keep reminding people to step back, calm down, and just love everyone.

There was a time when it was enough for a man and woman to simply declare their love and devotion before God and a few witnesses in their local church. Their marriage certificate was a Bible presented to them with their names inscribed inside the front cover. That was it. 'Til death did they part.

Today, marriage is slightly more complicated. Anyone wanting to get hitched must get permission from the state, fork over the appropriate extortion fees, and then brace themselves for the ensuing tax hike. And to think that some people believe the key to preserving the sanctity of marriage is merely preventing homosexuals from going through the same corrupted, state-run process.

Almost everyone involved in this debate misses the real issue. The problem started when the state was first allowed entrance into the marriage covenant. A modern wedding is the joining together of man, woman, and government, but according to the Bible, marriage preceded the existence of the state. In fact, the institution that required man to leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife (Genesis 2:24) even preceded the existence of fathers and mothers. That's worth pointing out. Marriage was, is, and always will be as God defines it in scripture. That remains true no matter what label people want to slap on their respective sexual preferences.

The first step to take toward ending the "gay marriage" debate and defending the sanctity of marriage is the extrication of the state from what God intended to be the union of one man and one woman. After all, it is difficult to keep the marriage bed undefiled (Hebrews 13:4) while making room in it for politicians.

Video of the Doug Wilson-Andrew Sullivan Gay Marriage Debate

(via Canon Wired)

The Government Schools' Trans-Agenda

Reason number 5,327 to get your kids out of government schools (from Fox News):

Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice – but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates.

Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify.

The 11-page directive also urged schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.

Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value.

Really, is any further comment necessary?

Jesus Didn't Teach That Homosexuality Is Wrong

We've all heard that tired, old argument: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin." The conclusion, then, is that homosexuality is OK. Unfortunately, that kind of logic doesn't hold together when applied to other areas of life.

In math, we learned that 2+2=4. We never had to learn that 2+2=5 is wrong. Once we knew the correct answer, we could therefore assume that any answer other than 4 was incorrect. Just because we weren't taught explicitly that 2+2=5 is wrong didn't mean it was acceptable. We would have certainly had it marked wrong on a test, and no amount of arguing would have changed the teacher's mind.

When approached regarding the issue of marriage, Jesus simply recalled the words of Moses in Genesis 2:24: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus taught us what marriage is, so there really wasn't any need to teach us what marriage is not. If that's the case, then we can safely assume that whatever doesn't match up with his description of marriage is wrong.

Redefining Words

Hey, why not go all the way?

(Reposted from my blog White Noise.)

New York Legalizes Something That Doesn't Exist

It's official. The state of New York has legalized "gay marriage":

Same-sex marriage is now legal in New York after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that was narrowly passed by state lawmakers Friday, handing activists a breakthrough victory in the state where the gay rights movement was born. ...

... Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the country and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

What's next? Legalizing square circles?

Even Atheists Should Think Homosexuality is Morally Wrong

I believe that the atheistic worldview has no moral foundation upon which to make distinctions between right and wrong. The only way atheists can make a moral judgment is if they borrow from the Christian worldview, which adheres to moral absolutes. Still, for the purpose of this post, let's assume that it's possible for atheists to remain consistent in their worldview.

Atheists rely on a naturalistic, pragmatic morality that considers "right" to be that which is beneficial for humanity as a whole. Likewise, that which is detrimental to humanity is deemed "wrong". For example, an atheist may judge murder to be wrong on the basis that if everyone ran around killing each other, the human race would become extinct. The atheist can comfortably conclude, then, that it is good not to murder his fellow human being.

So what about the issue of homosexuality? Why do so many atheists seem to be such strong supporters of gay rights? I would think that the atheist, even from a naturalistic perspective, has no choice but to conclude that homosexuality is morally wrong. The reason is simple: If everyone were gay, procreation would cease, thereby dooming the human race to extinction.

(By the way, the same argument works for abortion, as I once pointed out to a pro-choice atheist.)

George Takei on Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" Bill

One question: When will the pedophiles rise up and demand that teachers discuss "intergenerational intimacy" in the classroom?

What If There Was a Medical Prevention for Homosexuality?

If there was a medical prevention for homosexuality, you can imagine the controversy that would arise. Consider this recent report in the LA Times:

Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.

That such a treatment would ever be considered, even to prevent genital abnormalities, has outraged gay and lesbian groups, troubled some doctors and fueled bioethicists' debate about the nature of human sexuality.

The treatment is a step toward "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation," said Alice Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University and an outspoken opponent of the treatment.

The ability to chemically steer a child's sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test — unintentionally or not — that potential.

To the claim that homosexuality is a choice, the homosexual typically responds, "I was born this way. Do you really think I would choose this lifestyle and all that goes along with it?" Fine. Let's assume the cause of homosexuality is purely biological. If growing up gay means having to suffer shame, humiliation, discrimination, and alienation, how could anyone be outraged at the possibility of a medical prevention for all of that pain and suffering?

Some may argue that is the equivalent of trying to manipulate other inherent traits, such as sex or race, in order to make life easier. However, neither of those traits are behavioral. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is explicitly defined by one's behavior.

But the debate shouldn't be over the biological causation of homosexuality. It's a moot point. According to God's word, homosexuality is a sin, and it's root cause (biological or otherwise) is...well, sin (Romans 1:18-28). The one fact nobody can deny is that a conscious choice is made when one decides to justify and embrace the sin of homosexuality.