An atheist found one absolute moral law. Guess which politically correct one it is?

Atheists often have in-house debates over morality.  Some try to pretend that there really could be objective morality under atheism (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, for all his poor reasoning, was anti-abortion).  Others are more consistent with their worldview — well, they try to be until someone does something bad to them — and insist that there are no universal morals.  They are pure moral relativists, acknowledging that we’ve (allegedly) evolved to “think” there are morals, but that these are really just personal preferences.

One of the latter group has had a change of heart.  Sort of.  Via Professor Larry Moran squares the circle:

Professor Larry Moran has recently created something which he has previously declared to be impossible: a moral absolute. Readers might be wondering: what is Professor Moran’s moral absolute all about? Is it about the inherent wrongfulness of killing the innocent, or taking away people’s freedom, or oppressing the poor, or violating a commitment one has given? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong! Here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:

“It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry.”

The reason why I was surprised to read this statement on Professor Moran’s blog is that he has previously denied the existence of moral absolutes. Here are a few examples of statements he has made on the subject of morality, and on how we can know that something is true . . .

How fitting that he picked our society’s most politically protected sins to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that suppression of truth leads to.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

You can’t make up things like this.  2,000 years ago the Holy Spirit inspired Romans 1, and here it perfectly describes this atheist.  He suppresses the truth by saying there is no God and no moral laws, then he makes up one moral law that goes against God’s first example of where suppression of the truth leads.

Atheists simply can’t live consistently with their worldview.  I hope God makes Moran and others spiritually alive so they can repent and believe.  There is a better way to live than by using the talents God gave you to shake your fist at him 24×7.

Roundup

What are the historical arguments for the empty tomb narrative?This is the central argument to Christianity – and life itself – so everyone should be familiar with the evidence. 

Fighting pornography — Our church did a great seminar on fighting pornography.  I’m glad they tackled this issue directly.  I highly encourage people to listen to it.

Don’t Know the Party of a Politician Caught in a Scandal? He’s Probably a Democrat – More examples of a timeless issue.

How to spot a player

. . . these are the men who know how to open the bra, and opening the bra means being the kind of man a feral woman will fall in love with.  Such men are in limited supply to begin with, but this brings us to the second reason the man a feral woman falls in love with is almost guaranteed to be a player;  men who can open the bra and want to settle down are not only rare, those who fit this description have almost certainly already settled down.

So long as a woman is playing the uncommitted sex game, she is going to find herself seeking the best players of that game.  The mistake is in pretending she wasn’t playing the uncommitted sex game in the first place, not in failing to identify a man who will play it better than she does.

More about Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling book – The latest revision deleted her reference to the New Age book that inspired her writings.  Worse news: There are 9 million copies of the original out there.  Ugh. (Thanks to Glenn for the link!)

Disney goes gay – It was just a matter of time. 

Here is a clip from a recent episode of The Disney Channel show Good Luck Charlie, featuring a lesbian couple coming over with their adopted child, Taylor, for a play date. Note how the main mother character, Amy (Leigh Allyn Baker) is nonchalant about exposing her daughter (Charlie) to homosexual parenting. (Amy goes on to call the lesbians a “great couple” [go to 1:45 in the longer video segment]. Also note how she apparently never discussed the “lesbian moms” visit with her husband Bob (Eric Allen Kramer–of course, the dumber one). Get the message? A visit by homosexual parents is so inconsequential it doesn’t even merit a family discussion!

 

Prominent white homosexual activist exposed as a racist gay pedophile This isn’t to say that all gays are pedophiles and/or racists, merely that it is highly unlikely that the mainstream media told you about any of this.

The Muslim Agenda Yes, there is an agenda and yes, they are executing it (pun intended) very well. 

The Papacy – a great overview, including a link to a free book.

Popery is the counterfeit of Christianity,–a most elaborate and skilfully contriven counterfeit,– a counterfeit in which the form is faithfully preserved, the spirit utterly extinguished, and the end completely inverted. This counterfeit Church has its high priest,–the Pope,–who blasphemes the royal priesthood of Christ, by assuming his office, when he pretends to be Lord of the conscience, Lord of the Church, and Lord of the world; and by assuming his names, when he calls himself “the Light of the World,” “the King of Glory,” “the Lion of the tribe of Judah,”[1] Christ’s Vicar and God’s Vicegerent. This counterfeit Church has, too, its sacrifice,–the mass, which blasphemes the sacrifice of Christ, by virtually teaching its inefficiency, and needing to be repeated, as is done when Christ’s very body and blood are again offered in sacrifice by the hands of the priests of Rome, for the sins of the living and the dead. This Church has, moreover, its Bible, which is tradition, which blasphemes the Word of God, by virtually teaching its insufficiency. It has its mediators,–saints and angels, and especially the Virgin; and thus it blasphemes the one Mediator between God and man. In fine, it blasphemes the person and the office of the Spirit as the sanctifier, because it teaches that its sacraments can make holy; and it blasphemes God, by teaching that its priests can pardon sin, and can release from the obligations of divine law. Thus has Popery counterfeited, and, by counterfeiting, set aside, all that is vital and valuable in Christianity. It robs Christ of his kingly office, by exalting the Pope to his throne; it robs him of his priesthood in the sacrifice of the mass; it robs him of his power as Mediator, by substituting Mary; it robs him of his prophetical office, by substituting the teachings of an infallible Church; it robs God the Spirit of his peculiar work as the sanctifier, by attributing the power of conferring grace to its own ordinances; and it robs God the Father of his prerogatives, by assuming the power of justifying and pardoning men.

And yet another example of how common descent has been disproved – but the science lobby has forgotten to tell the mainstream Darwin fans.

Today these uncooperative findings have become undeniable and in response evolutionists have all but dropped the common descent prediction, replacing it with a lineage-specific model where evolution is constantly creating new genome features, even between nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree. What evolutionists have not reckoned with is the implications of this move. If evolution can produce a lineage-specific pattern as well as a common descent pattern, then the comparisons lose their confirmation power. If evolution explains either A or B, then the observation of A, or of B, cannot support evolution very well. Nonetheless evolutionists continue to proclaim those comparisons that align with common descent as powerful and compelling proof texts for evolution.

Why I Quit My Sorority Over Racial DiscriminationGood for her.  What idiots those sororities were to be so racist. 

Is bigotry keeping young people from the pews, or are they making a god in their own image?

Hint: It is the latter, as always.

Alternate title: “False teachers like Chuck Currie say Jesus is a bigot.”

Hateful, libelous, pervertedradical pro-abortionist, false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie claims churches are wrong for excluding people who mock the views of the church.  Then again, he’s the kind of dad who sacrifices the innocence of 6 yr. old kids by taking them to gay pride parades.  But hey, anything to advance Satan’s agenda appears to be OK with Chuck.

Via Churches Still Ejecting Gays and Lesbians:

Bigotry in churches is keeping young people from the pews.

He is making a play on the UCC “ejector seats” ad that would have been clever if the apostate denomination wasn’t losing people year after year.

He links to this HuffPo article: One-Third Of Millennials Who Left Their Religion Did It Because Of Anti-Gay Policies.

But if Chuck wasn’t a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), he’d know that the people who left were never Christians to begin with.  So the church is better for them having left.  Oh, I hope they come back, once they are ready to do it on God’s terms and conditions.

The Millenials who left churches were bound to have done so for some current, politically correct reason, so I’m surprised the number isn’t higher.  They probably went to churches that didn’t equip people to explain God’s view on human sexuality.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

Some are staying away because they don’t want to participate in institutions that offer hate in place of God’s love.

No, that is a straw man argument.  If you really love people you won’t affirm them in horrible choices that will destroy them physically, spiritually and emotionally.  Chuck loves himself and the world, not gays or God.

Others are literally being ejected from their churches because of their sexuality.

Bobbie Pierce is an example. His congregation, Ambassador’s Bible Chapel in Newberry Township, has removed him from membership and refused him communion because he’s gay.

No, it was because he was a gay rebel, shaking his fist at God, mocking God’s word and refusing to try and change.

Their leadership says this is an act of love meant to force Mr. Pierce to change his sinful ways but homosexuality is not a sin: bigotry is.

As usual, Chuck writes the opposite of the Bible.  His father is the father of lies, so it is Chuck’s native tongue.

. . . Anti-gay hate laws continue to be justified, in a form of theological malpractice, with Christian teachings.  We know better.  God calls us to be a just society filled with grace and not judgement.

Chuck should read 1 Corinthians 5.  No, wait, Chuck should read the entire Bible.

Bobbie Pierce and others like him need to know he is welcome in God’s house.

Chuck’s house is that of the god of this world.

People who “leave” Christianity were never really in it to begin with.  God’s terms and conditions are unbelievably generous, but you don’t get to change them.  Authentically repent and trust in Jesus and your sins will be forgiven and you’ll have the righteousness of Christ given to you.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

  1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
  2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
  3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Please read these timeless and simple investing tips

Yes, that is the most boring title ever, but please read anyway.  This is important.

The Sheep and the Wolves: Smart Investing Made Simple had some great advice for all investors.  There are always risks — especially in the economy we’re suffering through now where a major crash is possible — but this advice should work well regardless.  The risk of completely sitting out of the market is that inflation drives stocks up for a time and you miss out on those gains.

The odds of you timing the market perfectly or even well are extremely low.  Most experts can’t even do it.

Even picking individual stocks is a challenge for amateurs and pros alike.  When I used to work for Compaq / HP I sometimes had access to earning per share results and projections, the holy grail of investment information (no, I never abused it — I always invested steadily and could only trade in narrow windows each quarter).  But even with that knowledge I couldn’t guess where the stock would go, because we would sometimes see the stock dip even after record earnings.  Why?  Because of some comment about future earnings or even a misstatement by our CEO or CFO.  The lesson?  Don’t try and be an expert about market timing.  Even with the ultimate inside information I still wouldn’t have been sure to win.

I also saw how a company could drive up a stock price by mortgaging the future.  They would rush out a new product to hit quarterly earnings then suffer for years because of quality issues and customer dissatisfaction.  Or if times were tough they would consume financial reserves that had been built up in conservative years.  That gave the illusion that things were still going well, but eventually the reserves ran out.  In theory the Big 4 auditors would have done something about that, but their value is highly overrated (I say that as a CPA who used to be in a Big 8 firm, back before they started merging).

I was glad to see that two of the Vanguard Funds I’ve used for years were listed (VGSTX and VTSMX).  Vanguard is easy to use and their low cost model is crucial, especially in down years.  If your broker is churning your investments and charging you upwards of 2% over the course of a year, then in a year of 5% returns he has taken 40% of your gains, leaving you with nothing after inflation.  Buying a mix of mutual funds and holding them is the key.

The other key, of course, is to start early.  There are lots of ways to convey the benefits of compound interest, but no matter how much you make I urge you to start young.  If you save 10% per year for your career you will be fine in retirement.

Here’s a sample of the link.  I encourage you to read it all.

Stock-market investors are like these sheep farmers. Collectively, they enjoy investment returns of roughly 10 percent per year. Individually, however, things are different. Most investors suffer severe losses from the wolves of Wall Street. Wolves, by the way, who don sheep’s clothing to convince investors to trust them. (These investors also have a tendency to make things worse by selling their flocks when sheep prices fall and expanding them when prices rise.) If you want to be a successful farmer, you have to understand how farming works, and how to protect yourself from the wolves. Fortunately, it’s not as tough as it seems.

The financial industry wants you to believe that investing is difficult. If you buy into their message, if you accept the premise that you need help to invest wisely, they can charge you big bucks to handle your money. The truth is somewhat different. Investing is simple. In fact, it can be one of the easiest things you do while managing your finances. How simple? Let’s boil it down to just a few sentences.

Here’s how to invest wisely:

Set aside as much as you can in investment accounts. Prefer tax-advantaged accounts (like a 401(k) or Roth IRA) before taxable accounts.

Invest all of your money in a low-cost stock index fund, such as Vanguard’s VTSMX or Fidelity’s FSTMX.P

If the stock market makes you nervous, allocate some portion of your money to a bond fund. Or invest instead in a low-cost combo fund like Vanguard’s VGSTX or Fidelity’s FFNOX.

Continue investing as much money as possible. Never touch it. (Nothing makes a bigger difference to the size of your flock investments than how much you contribute.)

Ignore the news and ignore your fund.

That’s it. Seriously. That’s all you have to do to earn returns better than 90 percent of other investors.

There are scores of books and published research papers that support this strategy. It’s also the strategy that Warren Buffett (and other top pros) recommend for 99 percent of investors. If you’d like, you can spend days or weeks or months reading about why this works. Or you can trust these folks and do it.

Roundup

One Great Question to Ask a Friend – “If you were the devil, where would you attack yourself?” 

Daily prayers sent to your email – Sign up at the link to get some biblical, simple prayers to start your day.  These serve as a good reminder and a sort of “jump start” to my prayers.  A sample:

YOUR WORD

I am grateful to You, O God, for the blessing of your forgiveness.  I thank You that in Christ, You set me free from the guilt of the past and give me hope for the future.

O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger
Or chasten me in Your wrath. 
Be merciful to me, Lord, for I am weak;
O Lord, heal me, for my bones are in distress. 
My soul also is greatly troubled;
But You, O Lord, how long?  (Psalm 6:1-3)

Let the power of my Lord be great, just as You have spoken, saying, “The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression.”  (Numbers 14:17-18)

Take a moment to ask the Spirit to search your heart and reveal any areas of unconfessed sin.  Acknowledge these to the Lord and thank Him for His forgiveness.

MY PRAYER

Direct my footsteps according to Your word, and let no iniquity have dominion over me.  (Psalm 119:133)

Who may ascend the hill of the Lord?  Who may stand in His holy place?  He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not lifted up his soul to an idol or sworn by what is false.  (Psalm 24:3-4)

Lord, I thank You for Your beloved Son and for Your unfailing love.  I thank You for Your wonderful thoughts, and I ask that I would follow Your word and walk in purity of heart.

Writing Checks to Mel GibsonI don’t know if the new Son of God movie will be faithful to scripture or not, but let’s not lose sight of how over-hyped the impact of The Passion of the Christ was.  If you can use the new movie to point people to scripture, that’s great.  But don’t kid yourself and think it will do the work of evangelism for you.  The longer I’ve been a Christian the more I trust the word of God to do what it claims.  We don’t need gimmicks. 

Back in 2004, I was a member of a Southern Baptist church that tried to ride the Passion wave by mimicking just about everything Rick Warren did. The pastors raised tens of thousands of dollars from the congregation, then bought movie passes, booked theaters, distributed tickets, formed small groups, bought Warren’s follow-up curriculum, and waited to transform the city. Giving away the tickets was the easy part—people gladly accepted free movie passes to the film everyone was talking about. All the tickets went, but as far as I know, not a single person—not even one—came to any of the follow-up studies. No one was saved. Nothing happened. All the time, energy and resources gained nothing.

Useful Idiots for Baal — Erick Erickson does a great take down of Rob Bell, Rachel Held Evans, Donald Miller, Jim Wallis, Joel Osteen and more.   We need more of this!

Too many of these people, often hipster prophets, make people comfortable in their sin while trying to sell Jesus. One comfortable in his sin rarely sees the need to embrace one who will extricate him from his sin. These peddlers of pop Christianity are useful idiots for Baal because they claim their faith in Christ without ever making anyone uncomfortable in their here and now. Christ made people uncomfortable.

As a friend noted this passage from Bonhoeffer last night in email:

“The messengers of Jesus will be hated to the end of time. They will be blamed for all the division which rend cities and homes. Jesus and his disciples will be condemned on all sides for undermining family life, and for leading the nation astray; they will be called crazy fanatics and disturbers of the peace.”

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship,” 1937.

The useful idiots of Baal are not willing to go along for that ride. They’d rather their Jesus bake cakes for gay weddings.

Study: Democrats more likely to think astrology is scientific, less likely to know Earth revolves around the sun – Conservative Republicans were the most likely to get both answers right.  Let me know if this gets reported in any Leftist media outlets.  Friendly reminder: Liberals fail at basic economics.

Former Planned Parenthood worker: ‘It was a money-grubbing, evil, very sad, sad place to work’ – Your tax dollars at work.  Not surprising, given that they kill babies for a living, but it is always grisly to hear the details.

Marianne Anderson is a nurse who assisted Planned Parenthood abortionists by partially sedating women who paid extra for that luxury.  She told The Criterion newspaper that she saw many women pressured into abortions they did not want, including minor girls.

“One young girl came in with her mom,” Anderson told the paper.  “She was about 16. Her mom had made the appointment. That’s not supposed to be how it works. It’s supposed to only be the patient who makes the appointment. I checked her in, and she thought she was there for a prenatal checkup. The mom was pushing it. She blindsided her own daughter.”

Another time, said Anderson, “This guy brought in a Korean girl. I had no doubt in my mind this girl was a sex slave. This guy would not leave her side. They could barely communicate. He wanted to make all the arrangements.  During the ultrasound, she told one of the nurses that there were lots of girls in the house, and that the man hits them. She never came back for the abortion. I always wondered what happened to her. One of my co-workers said, ‘You’re better off to just let it go.’”

When women cried during the abortion procedure, Anderson said, abortionist Michael King would shame them. “These girls would start crying on the table, and Dr. King would say, ‘Now you chose to be here. Sit still. I don’t have time for this.’”

“One doctor, when he was in the POC [products of conception] room, would talk to the aborted baby while looking for all the parts. ‘Come on, little arm, I know you’re here! Now you stop hiding from me!’ It just made me sick to my stomach,” Anderson said. “The sound the suction machine made when it turned on still haunts me.”

Anderson told The Criterion she started working at the facility because she believed that as long as women were having abortions, they should be safe about it.

But Anderson quickly abandoned her illusions of safety once she began work at Planned Parenthood.  “I started feeling uneasy working there when people came from national in New York City to teach us the conscious sedation process,” Anderson told the paper.  “It was disgusting. These two ladies had this chant they would do: ‘Abortion all the time!’ I t
hought, ‘I’ve got to get out of here.’ That was about six to eight months after I started.”

Anderson said the overall experience of working for Planned Parenthood was “absolutely miserable.”

“It was a money-grubbing, evil, very sad, sad place to work,” she said. “I was always getting in trouble for talking too long to the girls, asking if they were sure they wanted to do this.”

Venezuela Begins to Ignite, as MSM Looks AwayDoesn’t this seem a little newsworthy?  Apparently realities that reflect poorly on Socialism can’t be highlighted. 

Over the past week, Venezuelan protesters have been fighting against corruption in the government, high inflation, and a high murder rate.

Former Lesbian Jackie Hill Responds To Macklemore’s ‘Same Love’ – Good response.

Pastor David Slautterback expels unrepentant homosexual from congregation – Key word: Unrepentant.  That should apply to anyone coming in shaking their fist at God and trying to teach that sin isn’t sin.  I hope pastors like him also take the same stand on unrepentant heterosexual sins.

N.T. Wright lectures on the resurrection of Jesus: did Jesus rise from the dead? – Wright is squishy on some topics, but he gets this one right. 

To conclude, Wright makes the argument that the best explanation of all of these changes in theology and practice is that God raised Jesus (bodily) from the dead. There is simply no way that this community would have made up the single resurrection of the Messiah – who wasn’t even supposed to die – and then put themselves on the line for that belief.

And remember, the belief in a resurrected Jesus was something that the earliest witnesses could really assess, because they were the ones who saw him killed and then walking around again after his death. They were able to confirm or deny their belief in the resurrection of Jesus based on their own personal experiences with the object of those beliefs.

 

Heterosexual supporters of “same-sex marriage” are going to get mugged by reality

Here’s why: Their support for these “marriages” will also justify support for polygamy, polyamory, bi-sexual multiple marriages and more — and their spouses will have the option to participate in those without their consent.  The woman who supports “same-sex marriage” today may regret it when her husband brings home another woman — or another man — to legally share her home and finances.  They will also lose their spouses and children because the courts will be eager to side with the LGBTQX people, such as in this case.

Please read this post carefully so you’ll be able to show people how the pro-gay movement can have deep and personal impacts on them.  This is not a “slippery slope” fallacy, it is a logical slippery slope (or, as I like to call it, a cliff argument), where the arguments for one position automatically support another position as well.  And don’t say, “That can’t happen!,” because it is already getting mainstreamed.  

The consequences are huge and have already manifested themselves in many places.  Their agenda has and will continue to cost people their personal liberties, religious freedom and parental rights — and those are design features, not bugs.

There is a simple reason that the gay lobby focuses mostly on the “LG” (lesbian and gay) part of the LGBTQX alphabet soup: The reasoning of the rest of the acronym is harder to sell because of the logical consequences.  But if they can get the first part affirmed and codified then it will be too late to backtrack to prevent the rest from taking place.  Case in point: Have you noticed how they never talk about bisexuals and their “civil rights” to be able to marry at least one person of each sex?  After all, all the same arguments for gays and lesbians should apply to them.

We have such obvious and sound arguments on our side.  By nature and design, one man / one woman relationships produce the next generation and only those unions can provide a mother and a father to a child.  Therefore, the government has an interest in those unions, because they form the foundation of society.  We don’t even have to use religious arguments, though of course God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages and homosexual behavior is a sin.  The Bible could not be more clear.

But our arguments have often been ineffective.  Why?  Because the foundational lie of the gay lobby works so well.  They combine a lie (“Agree with us and it will cost you nothing while helping others”) with the truth (“We will relentlessly harm you if you disagree”) and that is too much for many people to withstand.  They have made it very easy for people to switch sides and repeat false sound bites (they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about it, it prevents bullying, it doesn’t hurt you, they love each other, we shouldn’t ban same-sex marriage, etc.).  People are really good at rationalizing lies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

So I encourage you to try this reasoning: Ask the other person if they’d mind if their spouse (current or future) decided to maintain their relationship and marry someone else of the opposite sex — or the same sex.  Would that bother them?  If so, why aren’t they living consistently — even just hypothetically! — with their own worldview?  If they claim it wouldn’t bother them, ask if you can use your home polygraph test on them.  The other person may lie to you and pretend that they wouldn’t care, but you will have given them something to think about.  Later in the post I’ll show what that conversation could look like.

The argument takes the pro-gay reasoning to its logical conclusions and shows how most people will not like the possibilities.  That should help them re-think their entire argument.

It starts by demonstrating the truth that marriage is something we describe, not define.  As Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has noted, marriage has always described something that existed: A union of a man and a woman.  But if people think marriage is something we get to define, then anything goes.  Sure, they pretend that they just want to define it as any two adults who love each other, etc.  But why pull up the drawbridge there?  If you choose to define it rather than describe it, then why can’t others define it their way?

Then it points out the logical conclusions: If marriage isn’t just a union of a man and a woman, then why can’t it involve three people?  Why can’t it be polygamous?  Why can’t a man have a wife and a husband in two separate but simultaneous marriages?  Why can’t you marry your dog?  As Koukl notes, when the other person says those are silly examples, you get to agree with them!  Yes, they are silly — but they are your arguments, not mine.  If your position is that we can define marriage how we like, these possibilities are open for others who are more “open minded” than you are.

Here’s how that conversation might look.  Remember to be nice!  This doesn’t have to be combative.  You aren’t trying to grind them into a fine powder, you want them to see where their worldview is taking them.  Oh, and you want to work the Gospel in wherever you can.

Christian: So what do you think of this “same-sex marriage” and adoptions by gay people?

Pro-gay person: I’m all for it.  Hey, they love each other and that’s what it is all about.  You have a civil right to marry who you like.  It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage.  And the Bible never said it is wrong.

And gay people adopting is fine. Kids need love from anyone.  It doesn’t have to be a male and a female.

C: Actually, the Bible couldn’t be more clear, and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people agree that it considers homosexual behavior sinful.  We can come back to that if you like.

So do you think marriage is something you define or describe?  I mean, is marriage a thing that exists and then we describe it, or is it just a word that we can change the definition of?

P: I think we can redefine it.  It used to be that interracial marriage was forbidden.

C: But the definition was the same: A union of a man and a woman.  So if you can redefine it, I assume you are OK with polygamy, polyamory (group marriage), polyandry (multiple husbands), one or more spouse of each sex, marriages to animals, etc.?

P: Oh, don’t be silly.

C: I agree that those are silly, but they are your arguments, not mine.  If marriage is something you define, then who are you to say others can’t define it their way?  All the same things apply: It is the same love, they were born that way, Jesus never said anything about them, etc.

P: But those things won’t happen.

C: They can and they will.  The polygamy and pedophilia movements are already latching onto the gay agenda gains and using the same reasoning. ABC just ran a fluff piece on polygamy and The Atlantic is advocating for polyamory.  This is how they change the culture to accept what used to be unthinkable.  Who would have predicted 10-15 years ago where we’d be now with “same-sex marriage?”  Who would have thought that Christian bakers could lose their businesses for not baking cakes for same-sex “weddings?”

So why are you pulling up the drawbridge on these other people who want to live out the way they were born?  How do their loving relationships hurt you?  If a bisexual was born that way, how can you deny him the fulfillment of marrying a man and a woman?

And who says that you can only love one person?  Why can’t a man or a woman have two or more spouses of any gender?

Real feminists should hate where this is headed.  Women will devote their youth to raising kids, only to have their husband be able to bring another partner into the household.

P: Well, I guess . . .

C: You are married with kids, right?

P: Yes, I’ve been married to my husband for 12 years and we have 2 kids.

C: OK, so consider this: Your husband comes home and tells you he loves you and wants to stay married to you, but he has always been attracted to men as well.  And there is a man he really loves.  So for him to be complete he is also going to marry him.  His “husband” will live in your house with you and your kids and they will have sex together.    

P: That’s ridiculous.

C: But it could happen, right?  Lots of men have abandoned families for gay lovers and women have left for lesbian relationships.  Episcopalian “Bishop” Gene Robinson is a Leftist hero for leaving his wife and kids for his gay lover.  Why shouldn’t these guys stay married and just add on?

Again, I’m using your born that way / same love / etc. logic.

So what would you do in that situation?

P: But our vows were to “forsake all others.”

C: Uh, sorry, but are you not familiar with no-fault divorce?  Wedding vows used to be like a real contract where you couldn’t unilaterally abandon your obligation.  But with no-fault divorce either party can leave for any reason.  So with the political clout LGBTQ people have things like this are inevitable.

P: Well, my husband would never do that.

C: Probably not, but if he had wanted to he probably wouldn’t have told you until society and your Left-leaning church decided that “same-sex marriage” was a civil right.

Again, what would you do?  It is just a hypothetical based on taking your views to their logical conclusions, so please don’t be offended.

P: Well, I’d divorce him.  Or I’d marry another husband!

C: And what makes you think another guy would want to be involved in that?!  “Yeah, my husband married a guy that shares our bed now, so I want a second husband.”

Wouldn’t you want your husband to be happy and fulfilled and to be who he really is?

P: Not at my expense!

C: Indeed.  So if you divorced him, do you realize that some Leftist judge would probably give him parental rights? 

P: No way!

C: Way.  Think about it: You and society have decided that it is illegal for adoption agencies to “discriminate” against gay couples.  So they are “obviously” just as fit to parent your kids as a heterosexual couple.  And there would be two of them — your husband and his lover — versus just one of you.  And given how politically incorrect it would be to give custody to you, the judge would almost certainly side with them.  

So the logical conclusion of your worldview would be you — or someone else — either living with your spouse and his new spouse (man or woman) and you would have no legal control over it.

P: I still don’t think that would happen.

C: It will, because the logic is already in place once you grant civil rights to sexual preferences — whether allegedly inborn or not.  

Let’s try another example: Regular polygamy.  I picked the “bisexual polygamy” first because, oddly enough, they are ahead of the regular polygamists in getting civil rights for their sexual preferences.  But how can you argue against polygamy at all?  At least those relationships fit the original definition of marriage — that is, one man and one woman.  By nature and design they could produce children and provide a mother and a father to them.  They “just” involved more than one of those relationships.  

P: But polygamy is wrong! [Note: The Leftists may not even think it is wrong, but I assumed so in this case to make it harder to convince them.]

C: We agree, but you’ve already made the case for them: They love each other (“same love!”), they were born that way, etc.  They can even claim that there are more parents around to love the kids.  So your support of government recognition of same-sex unions unwittingly made the case for polygamy.

So here’s another hypothetical: What if your husband decides he’d like a younger wife but doesn’t want the costly divorce?  He’ll be able to marry someone whether you like it or not and bring her into your house.  She would share in all you have built up over the years and actually live with you.  Think of the guys who dump their spouses for “trophy wives.”  Polygamy may be much simpler and cheaper for them.

P: My husband would never do that!

C: But if society tells him it is OK, he might change his mind.  Remember how much people are influenced by the “if it is legal then it must be moral” line of thinking.  Even Planned Parenthood said this about abortion in a 1964 advertisement: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Just years later half the population thought that abortion was an inalienable right and a completely moral solution.  So give it a decade or two and it may seem natural for your husband to consider a younger model.

And even though the Bible clearly teaches that God’s ideal is one man / one woman marriages for life, it is a thousand times easier to twist the Bible to support polygamy than it is to support “same-sex marriage.”

And even if your husband wouldn’t do that, what about all the other women and children impacted by it?

Now don’t feel like you have to answer me now, or at all, but I encourage you to think carefully about these things and see if perhaps you should reconsider your views.  If you think I’ve stated something incorrectly or illogically, please let me know.  But I firmly believe that those are all logical consequences of assigning civil rights to sexual preferences. Even if gays were born that way, there are no good reasons for the government to get involved in their relationships and there are many bad things that will inevitably happen — if not to you, then to others.

And please remember what the word of God says about this:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

God created this world and knows exactly how it works.  Living in denial of that reality is always a recipe for pain.  The Good News is that all sins can be forgiven through repenting and trusting in Jesus.

—–

Conclusion: I encourage you to try this reasoning with people who hold pro-LGBTQ views.  I think it is a provocative way to get them to quit spouting fallacious sound bites and to think more carefully about the logical conclusions of their views.  Yes, it is an emotional argument, but one grounded in facts and logic.  The Left falsely uses emotional arguments, but there is nothing wrong with use using them properly.

——

By the way, if you a conservative using this on a Left-leaning spouse, be sure to tell them these are hypothetical situations!  You don’t want them to freak out too badly.

When false teachers get preachy on sin . . .

. . . you know they are rebelling against God in some politically correct way.  They never preach on what the Bible calls sin, but on some politically correct made-up “sin.”

Hateful, libelous, pervertedradical pro-abortionist, false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is upset that some people in Arizona are fighting for the religious freedom not to participate in anti-God “same-sex marriages.”  Via Arizona’s SB1062 Is A Matter Of Sin:

Arizona’s SB1062, a law which would allow religious people to discriminate against LGBT people, is a legal decedent of Jim Crow.  This is not about religious freedom but about bigotry.

They were not born that way, and even if they were, sexual preferences do not warrant special civil rights. Skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not.  The facts are that “not only is sexual orientation fluid, but many instances of change occur without any therapy or intervention. For example, a study from the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 68% of 15 year-olds with same-sex attraction had opposite-sex attraction (OSA) by the age of 21.* Again, these changes occurred spontaneously.”

But Chuck is a Romans 1 poster boy, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and encouraging people to rebel against God via homosexuality and other perversions.

A generation ago people used the Christian faith to justify discrimination against African-Americans and interracial couples. That was a misuse of the faith and only possible because white supremacists superimposed their beliefs over those taught by Jesus.

But those marriages were of one man and one woman.

If Chuck really cared about blacks he’d oppose the genocide of abortion, which kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites.

Using faith today to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians is just as twisted.

By “twisted” he means “biblical” and “in accordance with the 1st Amendment.”

. . . I applaud faith leaders in Arizona, like The Rev. Dr. John Dorhauer, conference minister of the Southwest Conference of the United Church of Christ, who have spoken out against this moral travesty. Love your neighbor, taught Jesus.

I’ll bet Dorhauer is also a pro-abort who claims to “love” his neighbor.

Discrimination is not love nor is it a hallmark religious freedom. Reach out to friends and family in Arizona and tell them that as a person of faith you oppose discriminate and embrace God’s love – a love that extends to God’s gay and lesbian children.

More bad theology from Chuck: God’s children are those who have repented and trust in Jesus: John 1:1 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.  If “Reverend” Chuck actually read his Bible he’d know that.