Tag Archives: hate

Biology, not bigotry, and removing barriers to evangelism

I’ll support unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions as soon as you convince me that the unborn aren’t human beings and I’ll support government recognition of “same-sex marriage” as soon as you prove that these couples can provide a mother and a father to a child.

In both cases it is biology, not bigotry, so don’t let people silence you on these crucial topics.

You don’t have to convert people to your point of view on marriage or abortion before sharing the Gospel or pointing them to the Bible.  But for many people these are barriers to even considering Christianity.  Just having a few replies — literally just a minute or so — is often all it takes.  You can simply say, “Yes, the Bible does say it is a sin but even if it didn’t we are still separated from God by our many other sins . . .” and then point them to the cross and to God’s word (same thing for the abortion issue).  Here’s a real-life example of how to do that.

If people are hostile to it, then hold your pearls.  But don’t give up before you try.

Advertisements

It isn’t just about love and hate, but about truth and lies and right and wrong

The Left reflexively plays the hate card when dealing with LGBTQ issues.  Sadly, too many  Bible-believing people fall prey to the trick and it silences them.  But it isn’t just about love and hate, but about truth and lies and right and wrong.

Consider these four possibilities:

1. You believe homosexual behavior is a sin and you share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
2. You believe homosexual behavior is a sin and you do not share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
3. You believe homosexual behavior is a not a sin and you share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.
4. You believe homosexual behavior is not a sin and you do not share what you think is the truth, as appropriate.

Before you can talk of love and hate, you’d need to understand right and wrong — or at least the perception of it by those in question.

Options 1 and 3 would be be acting in love (defined in the sense of having people’s long-term best interests at heart and not in the worldly sense of pampering people). Options 2 and 4 would be acting out of hate, or at least selfishness or indifference.

So it if you think homosexual behavior is a sin and don’t speak the truth, then you are acting hatefully — even if you were wrong in assessing the Bible (which you wouldn’t be).

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce 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.

So even in some bizarre hypothetical where the Bible actually supported homosexual behavior and Leviticus, Romans, all the verses on parenting and marriage, etc. stated the opposite of what they do, it wouldn’t be hateful to describe LGBTQ behavior as sinful. It would only be hate if someone “knew” the Bible said homosexual behavior was acceptable and taught otherwise.

In the same way, it is loving to remove false teachers from the church when they are advancing falsehoods with pro-gay theology.  It is a virtue to protect people.

And it would be un-loving to reject people just because they struggle with a sin that isn’t a temptation for you.  If people recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and aren’t teaching the opposite, they should be welcomed in church. You should be willing to pray for them and be friends with them.

The hate card assumes motives and judges the hearts of others.  In some cases it is probably accurate to define people as haters, such as with Democrat Fred Phelps and his “church.”  But it is a cheap trick to use it against everyone you disagree with — and especially right after all your other arguments have been exposed as faulty.

The real haters are those that know what the Bible really says yet value their own popularity over the physical, emotional and spiritual health of others. They would rather be politically correct than tell you the truth. That’s love of self, not love of others.

The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

Also see Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.

The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth

See  “Calling Out the Hatemongers” — as usual, the fake Christians just use real hate-filled rhetoric and demonizing to dismiss those they disagree with.  It is easier than presenting facts and logic, I suppose.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and the like hate God.  They love to twist his word to rationalize sin.  They love abortion. They hate gays so much that they tell them the opposite of what the Bible does.  They hate kids so they take them to gay pride parades to destroy their innocence.

They are the real racists, supporting abortion and especially taxpayer-funded abortion, which will increase the current 3-to-1 ratio of abortions in the black community to that of whites.  Why do Liberals hate blacks so much and want more of them destroyed?  Yet they have the hypocrisy and nerve to play the race card, even without evidence.  They oppose school choice, which helps keep blacks in institutionalized poverty.

And on and on.

These fakes have a “Driven by Faith, Not Fear” slogan, which would be mildly clever if it didn’t include Muslims and other non-Christians.  Those are radically different “faiths” and Chuck & Co. should not be yoked with them.  But that is another part of the Bible they don’t read or care about.

Once again, the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

Roundup

Video: Letterman’s shocking interview with a tea-party leader — Very even handed by Dave and a stellar de-bunking of the “violent tea partier” meme.

Michelle Malkin explains how the left regularly fakes hate crimes — don’t be gullible when you hear about these.  Yes, there is hate — but it is on both sides, and you only hear about one side from the mainstream media and they “forget” to tell you about all the fakes.

And what about real hate speech that called for the murder of the President?  Oh, that was a different President so it doesn’t count.

And can you remember the Old Media ever publishing these sort of photos during Bush’s eight years in office? Nope, me neither.

And did anyone notice how the anti-war rallies have ceased — or at least ceased to be covered by the media?  But doesn’t President Obama preside over those wars?  It this like how the homeless problem was cured the instant Bill Clinton took office?

Star Parker is running for Congress in California — Yea!

In Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It, Parker traced the shift in America’s attitude from a belief in strong families and hard work to the flawed idea that the government’s role is to solve social problems.

A nice summary of Bible reading tips I came across on another blog.  Just add “always read in context” and you’re off to a good start.

1. The specific trumps the general,
2. The genre where a verse is found matters; example: Proverbs describes general trends, rather than iron-clad guarantees; Leviticus is a book of law of ancient Israel
3. Novel interpretations are frowned upon; it’s unlikely if not impossible that the church, to whom Jesus promised that the gates of hell won’t prevail over, would miss something completely after all these years.
4. The clear interprets the unclear.
5. Some parts of the bible may be unclear by design! I believe that God purposefully is vague with regard to what the afterlife will be like, in order to keep us from ignoring this life. And not all questions are answered by the bible.

Things you wish were April Fool’s jokes, but aren’t — a gruesome list, including the “rights” of transgender students to use opposite-sex bathrooms in schools

From the National Review — Getting serious about pornography — so sad that our culture not only ignores how destructive this is but acts like it is normal.  I can’t tell you how many fluff pieces the Houston Chronicle has had on porn, getting all nostalgic on anniversaries of Deep Throat and Playboy. (Hat tip: The Constructive Curmudgeon)

Roundup

The Law of Unintended Consequences and its corollary, The Government Messes Up Everything It Tries to Fix, plays out again with ethanol production

Two years ago, the newly-Democratic Congress struck a blow for a greener planet by demanding a level of ethanol production based on current estimates of gasoline use.  This delighted corn farmers and ethanol manufacturers, and most everyone else assumed that little harm could be done by growing more corn and turning it into something other than food.  No one thought about what a recession might do to gasoline demand, or how a parallel Democratic push to force automakers to produce more efficient cars would impact the need for all of the ethanol Congress demanded.

Great.  Now food prices are higher, impacting the poor that the Democrats insist they care about.  And the government may force higher ethanol ratios which could damage your car and increase pollution.

My Continental.com itinerary page had a convenient option where I could have donated $12.37 to Sustainable Travel International, a non-profit organization  faux guilt relief scam, to offset the CO2 used for these flights.  Here’s a better idea if you like to give to groups like that: Send your money to me and I’ll send you an encouraging email to pump up your fragile ego.  Or better yet, donate it to a real charity and then release some endorphins.

Robin of Berkeley explains why the left hates Sarah Palin — Yep.  If they just disagreed with her ideas and explained why it would be fine.  That’s what we do with Obama.  Yet we’re called racist for that?!  I have never said anything remotely insulting of Obama like what Liberals do with Palin.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

Theological Liberals’ ethnocentric views on display as they claim that African Christians are manipulated into claiming that homosexual behavior is a sin.  What frauds. 

A Massachusetts think tank has released a new report alleging that North American church renewal organizations are manipulating African churches and exporting hostile views of homosexuality.

“Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, and Homophobia” has been authored by Political Research Associates (PRA), which labels itself “a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society.”

The organization says that its mission is to “expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights.” The PRA website lists projects promoting abortion advocacy, gay causes and challenging Christian right “theocracy.”

They are the real homophobes, as they are so fearful of the Politically Correct Police that they’ll deny common sense and the God they allegedly worship. 

I know many African Christians and they were very disappointed when they heard that some U.S. churches were blessing same-sex behavior.  There wasn’t even a hint of them thinking, “Gee, you Americans are so darn smart, perhaps we should re-think our position.”  It was more a reaction of bewilderment.

Maybe if the theologicaly Liberal folks were authentic Christians and took the Bible seriously they’d notice these facts:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing 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.

The real haters and responding to their inconsistency

hate.jpgMs. Green has some videos of truly hateful behavior by the anti-Proposition 8 folks.  Yet it is the Christians who are continually referred to as haters.  Sure, Fred Phelps and his ilk are haters and they call themselves Christian, but their behavior displays about as much fruit as their counterparts on the Left.  And the demonstrators on the Left far outnumber the Phelps-types. 

The Left uses the “hate” accusation reflexively to try to demonize and silence the opposition.  It is amazing that the hate label sticks to us when we actually take a live and let live approach to gays. We just don’t like it when they shove their agenda down our throats.

I’ve known for a long time that their theme of “tolerance” was an upside down use of the word.  You can only tolerate those you disagree with, and these people show no tolerance at all.

Here is one line of thinking to use in responding to the spurious “hate” personal attacks. 

If you want to disarm the liberals, just point out that if homosexuality could be detected in utero that you would be against those abortions, and ask them if they would agree to make those abortions illegal.  If heterosexual parents abort for Down Syndrome, gender, inconvenience, etc. I guarantee you that most parents would abort rather than have a potentially gay child (I wouldn’t).

I’ve asked this question many times and I have yet to find a heterosexual liberal who doesn’t love abortion rights more than gays. So this argument is a great way to make them squirm and to point out how ridiculous it is for them to label you as a homophobe. After all, they think it should be legal to destroy gays in the womb (even hypothetically) while you think they should be protected.

The most I’ve ever seen them say in response is that I’m against all abortions, so specific protections for gays isn’t meaningful. But I point out that if this was the only restriction made that I’d favor it.  You shouldn’t kill an innocent human being because he is gay or even might be gay.

It also forces them to reconsider their pro-abortion views, because it points out how the unborn are real human beings. That is one reason they fight any exceptions, even for gender selection abortions. They know that once you concede the humanity of the unborn for any reason then other abortions wouldn’t be justified.

If you do Venn diagrams of pro-legalized abortionists and pro-gay agenda folks, you’ll see virtually concentric circles. 

Authentic Christians do not hate these people.  Watch the videos and see.  But the truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.  And those that are pro-legalized abortion and pro-gay marriage are in deep rebellion to God.

I explored this more in a hypothetical dilemma.

I know that the “rights” talk makes for a good sound bite, but what rights are we talking about? The right to relationships? They have them. The right to be married? Uh, sorry, but they already have the right to marry a living being of the opposite sex of the same species under certain conditions (i.e., no incest, bestiality, polygamy or necrophilia). And who are they to pull up the drawbridge after gays get these “rights” and leave the other groups hanging?  Do they hate them?  Why else would they oppose their rights?

I thought this was a great summary by Invictus, who previously had been inclined to try and support gay civil marriage:

You know, I’m not really inclined to support the creation of a new “right”–one that has never existed in all of human history–on behalf of a people who so easily take up the mantle of thuggish oppression as soon as they are given space to do so.  Does anyone (idiots and liars excluded) really think that teams of police would be required to escort gay couples safely out of neighborhoods full of violent Mormons screaming death threats?

Hate speech / hate crimes


hate.jpg
“Truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.”

Some guy I heard on the radio.

Hate thought crimes legislation is moving through the House of Representatives.  This is an awful idea on many levels.

I’m a Christian, so of course I’m against hate.  I am commanded to love (that is, to have everyone’s long-term best interests at heart).  I just don’t see how you can legislate against hate or why my religious beliefs should be forced upon someone else.

Please note that I am anti-bullying in all venues, especially in schools.  I think all kids should be protected from verbal and physical bullying of any kind, on or off school grounds.  This isn’t a hate speech / hate crime issue, though.  It is the right of people not to be harassed or threatened for any reason.  If a kid is brutalized for being fat/thin/black/white/smart/not so smart/gay/straight/etc. it is all bad.

Why would a crime against a straight, white male have a lesser charge than the same crime against someone from a protected group?

Ironically, the pro-hate crimes legislation folks are typically anti-death penalty, so in many cases I am in favor of a stronger penalty for “hate crimes” than they are.  The evil men who lynched James Byrd back when George W. Bush was Governor of Texas rightly received the death penalty (in my view).  Yet those advocating hate crime penalties want “stronger” punishments but are against the death penalty.  Huh?!

The same thing goes if someone murdered someone who is gay (regardless of the motive).  Conservatives would typically be for the death penalty in most cases, while most Liberals would not.  If they have reasons to be against the death penalty, that is a separate debate.  Maybe they are right.  But I hardly see how anyone could be accused of being a “hater” when he would be in favor of a stronger punishment for the murderer than the pro-hate speech legislation groups.

If certain crimes are more heinous because of their historical significance (e.g., cross-burning), then I have no problem with those having stiffer penalties than average vandalism.

Making moral criticisms of a person or group is not hateful in and of itself.  If it was, then those who accuse of others of hate speech would be guilty of hate themselves.  Many liberal blogs would have to be shut down tomorrow for the venom they spew.  And groups like Alcoholics Anonymous would be guilty of hate speech against alcoholics.

“Hate crimes” are really two things – one is a crime against a person, for which there are laws in place (e.g., assault) and one is a belief against a class of people.

Then there is the selective enforcement.  I haven’t done a complete tally, but I have heard literal hate speech (e.g., “We hate Bush,” “Kill Michelle Malkin!”) much more from Democrats than Republicans.  Google it and see for yourself.  I don’t see any concern in the House about this kind of hate speech.

Make no mistake: This hate speech debate is about politics, and specifically about silencing opposing views.   It is rampant on college campuses and coming soon to the public arena near you.

That otherwise-Liberal proponents of hate speech legislation would so trample the First Amendment is beyond parody.

Also see Hating the (alleged) haters