Posted by Tim Spiess on 04/12/2015
Response to Advocating Popular Homosexual Views
The errors of reason so often committed by those who advocate homosexual beliefs are the same errors that are repeated over and over again in the main stream mass media. The inability to reason well is a symptom of relativism. Relativism is a world view that all things are relative to an individual’s perspective – meaning there are no absolute principles, rules or concepts that apply to all humans - including principles regarding human morality. This view is generally held by those who believe that there is nothing to serve as a standard higher than a human being or human beings collectively.
The root of the disagreement between those who advocate for homosexual ‘rights’ and we who believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong, is our standard to hold those views. Those who advocate homosexual ‘rights’ generally do so from a fundamental world view of moral relativism, meaning they have no objective standard to support their view. All they have is current popular belief oftentimes held by a powerful minority, and their primary argument to justify the ‘rightness’ of their belief is essentially some version of ‘because I believe it is right’ or ‘because so-and-so feels it is right’ or ‘because this group of people believe it is right’ or 'these experts say it is right'.
The fundamental flaw with their relativistic justification for saying something is “morally right” is the elitism or snobbery or self-righteousness and hypocrisy fostered by that view. For who are they to say their view is the “right” one when they have no objective standard to compare their belief to? Obviously they believe THEMSELVES to be the ‘enlightened ones’ and all who disagree with their opinions are the un-enlightened ones. Their relativistic views on this topic are self-defeating and therefore false and should be rejected as we shall see. Generally, self-pride will get one no where except in a cage of ignorance.
A more objective, non-relativistic view is that a Creator Being who both designed and created humans as well as the moral rules we ought to live by, has communicated an immutable moral ethic to humans in some form over past several millennia. Furthermore, a Perfect Being would not change nor would that Being change his/hers views on morality. This moral ethic has two aspects to it. The human conscience and in the disciples of Jesus’ case, the teachings of the Light of the world.
Let’s take a moment to consider the human conscience. For example, all human’s know at some level that murder – the unjustified or selfish killing of another human being - is wrong. This moral law is known by all people of all times and all cultures. Just because some people ignore the inner moral law written on their conscience does not mean it is not there. Nor because some people have so damaged their internal moral knowing that they are unable to keep their conscience clear does not mean their conscious never existed or that they never had understanding of the universal moral truth that was once available to them. To deny that human beings have a conscience - an internal moral compass that points away from what is wrong and towards what is right - is self-evident and thus undeniable.
The real failure of those who advocate ‘homosexuality’ is to turn around and castigate, judge, condemn and otherwise disrespect the views of those who disagree with them on that issue. This is hypocrisy at least as bad as the worst religious hypocrisy that exists. So, let’s walk through Frank’s comments and prove the simple truths just articulated above. Frank's words will be in italics.
The Columbus Dispatch Frank Bruni commentary: It’s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins
The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious-freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision.
[The bias begins right at the beginning e.g. “so-called religious-freedom laws”. Why "so-called"? Frank cannot even consider the fact that millions of people believe that “religious-freedom laws” is an accurate and appropriate description for what they are trying to accomplish with that law. All ‘religion’ that offers moral guidance for people is automatically wrong to those who don’t believe God exists or who don't believe that God is a moral being who cares about the rightness or wrongness of human behavior.]
They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree.
[So, the standard of ‘truth’ for Frank is ‘several prominent denominations’ and their members latest 'interpretations' of the bible. As a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, I would use him as my standard. And as we shall see, Jesus does teach that there is right and wrong behavior in the realm of sexual behavior, therefore people in 'prominent denominations' and their opinions do not matter.]
That many Christians regard them as incompatible is understandable, an example not so much of hatred’s pull as of tradition’s sway.
[The verses from the bible that the biblians/christians cite hardly amount to ‘tradition’. Rather, they are reasonable understandings of passages from what they believe is a God that speaks moral truths for all times. Many who believe a God exists - and that He exists outside of time and that being a perfect Being, He does not change – those people believe that others have accurately recorded or written down the moral teachings of that morally unchanging God.]
But the view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.
[So, when will the pedophiles make the same argument – that '…the view of pedophiles as sinners is a choice by biased, bigoted religious people...taken from scattered passages of ancient texts...'. Just like the relativist religious leaders, Frank argues that those passages in the biblians scripture is relative to the reader or is ‘open to different interpretations’. Frank cites ‘advances of science and knowledge’ to support his contention that all those passages in the bible that plainly describe homosexual behavior as morally wrong, ought to be dismissed based on those things. But science properly defined and understood does not speak to the morality of human behavior nor do some new beliefs (‘knowledge’) change the fact that those passages exist and that many people believe them to be timeless moral edicts from God who does not change his opinion!]
It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.
[There is the assumption in Frank’s statement that of course HIS writings or understandings on THIS topic are free from bias and blind spots. Another invalid argument of a relativist since all writings would be subject to that same problem, including the contemporary thinkers and writers like himself or those he cites to support his beliefs. We disciples have an unchanging Source and Standard for understanding God, human nature and human purpose, and he defeated death to prove he is a worthy Standard!]
It ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable. And it elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance, above the evidence in front of you, because to look honestly at gay, lesbian and bisexual people is to see that we’re the same magnificent riddles as everyone else.
[Relativists just cannot help but contradict themselves since their fundamental belief about human existence and thought is contradictory. Except HIS (Frank's) understanding of the issue, of course, because his is correct and those who oppose him are wrong by default! Those who believe an eternal Creator was able to transmit and record His moral rules to humans are "unthinking" robots. Frank relies on a false religious stereotype to imply that all people who believe God exists and whom he considers “religious” will ‘condemn homosexuals’. Those who advocate homosexual sex simply refuse to hear the voices of those people like me who say we don’t hate homosexual people, but we believe that expressions of homosexual sex are morally wrong. They refuse to make this distinction because it exposes and undercuts their main weapon against those who disagree with them, which weapon is to call those who disagree ‘hateful bigots’. Is that not hypocrisy and arrogance? Furthermore, followers of the Light don't deny that people are people no matter their gender or sexual desires...that all people are loved by their Creator/Father - our issue is if people choose to love Him back or not. But we do say that some sexual expressions are wrong, and that marriage is by Jesus' definition between a man and a woman, and that homosexual couples being given children to raise is wrong.]
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they've e jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history.
[I think it would be great to free 'religious people' from stuff that is wrong, just as I would think it would be great to free non-religious people (atheists and agnostics) from THEIR prejudices, but of course, what standard do you use to determine what is right and wrong...what forms a 'prejudice'? Frank and those that believe like HE does! Frank’s relativism is self-defeating just like many relativistic views…each relativist who speaks his opinions is THE STANDARD of truth when they speak it! Sorry, I'd rather listen to the One who defeated death to prove that what he taught was true, and he taught God exists and cares about what is right and wrong human's behavior.]
“Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” said David Gushee, an evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University.
[Well, you can listen to Mr. Gushee or you could listen to the vast majority of world history regarding homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior has been considered wrong, abnormal, or unnatural for almost all of recorded history in all cultures. Just recently – merely the past 40 year or less and only in western cultures – has homosexuality been considered acceptable behavior. Fifty years is a mere blip on the scale of human history, but those who advocate homosexual behavior don’t care about such facts because ‘we are right and you are wrong’. This would appear to be arrogance.]
For a very long time, he noted, “Many Christians thought slavery wasn’t sinful, until we finally concluded that it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed, and now very few Protestants and not that many Catholics would say that.”
[This relies upon a false argument equating slavery – the forceful use of other human beings to serve masters – with a free will choice of human sexual expression. Please note, I did not say that homosexuals do not have a predisposition to want to engage in homosexual behavior, but all people have a choice in terms of what they choose to express towards others. This is a part of what sets human beings apart from mere animals. Liars, adulterers, pedophiles, sinners - we all have choices to make regarding our behavior and self-control and self-denial is one of the attributes that – for those who exercise them – rise us up above mere animals.]
“In the United States, we have abandoned the idea that women are second-class, inferior and subordinate to men, but the Bible clearly teaches that,” said Jimmy Creech, a former United Methodist pastor who was removed after he performed a same-sex marriage in 1999. “We have said: That’s a part of the culture and history of the Bible. That is not appropriate for us today.”
[Let’s cite Jimmy Creech instead of Jesus of Nazareth, the supposed source of Christian beliefs! Did Jesus teach that women are “second-class and inferior” to men. No he does not. So the typical error of confusing the value of a person (men and women are equally valuable to God) with their natural characteristics or roles (women are better at certain things than men and vice versa) is wrongly cited to support homosexuality! And who wants to be a follower or servant to anyone! That goes totally against the me-generation and its natural selfish nature! In contrast, the Light teaches, "The greatest among you will be the lowest servant of all."]
And we could say the same about the idea that men and women in loving same-sex relationships are doing something wrong. In fact, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have said that. So have most American Catholics, in defiance of their church’s teaching.
[Love is good, but “love” as defined by Jesus of Nazareth, does not include sexual behavior. The core of "Love", properly defined by Jesus of Nazareth, is selfless behavior motivated by compassion. So let those two same gender people love each other and thus be committed and deep friends or companions for life, and at the same time, let them refrain from behavior that is wrong and thus harmful to them just like a different-gender couple might refrain from using child pornography to ‘enhance’ their ‘love making’. Furthermore, let them live with the consequences of their choices, like no children to raise, for that would be fair and just.]
And it’s a vital message because of something that Indiana demonstrated anew: Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination. It will cause gay and lesbian teenagers in fundamentalist households to agonize needlessly: Am I broken? Am I damned?
[Here Frank is talking to his straw man or in other words, he is talking to his religious bogey-man he makes up…he creates the ‘evil fundamentalists’ and the 'homophobics' who don’t love their children and who torment them with their religious lies or delusions. Humm. Perhaps reality is that parents who indulge their children’s wrong sexual views or practices – or who deny a moral reality that has consequences - will cause the most true and long lasting harm to their children? Perhaps there is a Creator and perhaps He did send His perfect Messenger, and perhaps His Son did teach that the only healthy expression of sexuality is between a husband and his wife? Oh, I forgot, that is ‘hate speech’ according to the new morality gods whose opinions are just as weighty as the teachings of the One who defeated death to prove who he is – the Messenger of the Creator! Frank also uses the popular method of calling or labeling your opponents something bad - homophobics - in order to bias his arguments. Poor reasoning and cheap parlor tricks and yet the the New York Times publishes his work...hum. Just so Frank knows, I am not afraid (phobic) of homosexuals, but do believe that their sexual desires are wrong, and I believe that based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I guess he was "homophobic" too! Furthermore, I guess Jesus was "sinphobic" since he taught lots of things that people want to do are "sinful" and make us "unclean". "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Luke 15:10. Oops, there is the real Jesus talking about "sinners" and "repentance"...better cover him up with some more words from the politically correct religious leader's Frank cites.]
A majority of Americans support marriage equality, including a majority of Catholics and most Jews. But a 2014 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that while 62 percent of white mainline Protestants favor same-sex marriages, only 38 percent of black Protestants, 35 percent of Hispanic Protestants and 28 percent of white evangelical Protestants do.
[Another common false argument, that majority opinion is always a good indicator of human morality…when will people who proffer such wrong arguments apply the lesson supposedly learned from the German culture and Nazism? How about the fact that the vast majority of people on the earth currently consider homosexual sex wrong or immoral? Why is THAT fact not cited? Obviously humans have problems with morality, just look at the world and all the hatred and harm caused by humans harming each other...look at all the wrong, selfish and damaging expressions of human sexuality! So, destroying another moral constraint in the realm of human sexuality is going to make the world a better place??? Homosexuals screaming 'hateful bigots' at those who oppose their view is going to lead to peace and love and not going to lead to violence against those who disagree with them???]
And these evangelical Protestants wield considerable power in the Republican primaries. Could this change? There’s a rapidly growing body of impressive, persuasive literature that looks at the very traditions and texts that inform many Christians’ denunciation of same-sex relationships and demonstrates how easily those points of reference can be understood in a different way.
[Only by people who approach those texts with a biased determination to find a way to nullify them and turn black into white…to rebuke all voices who disagree with their attempts to push relativistic irrationalism and their new morality on others.]
Gushee’s take on the topic, Changing Our Mind, was published late last year. It joined Jeff Chu’s Does Jesus Really Love Me? published in 2013, and Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, by James Brownson, published in 2013. Then there’s the 2014 book God and the Gay Christian, by Matthew Vines, who has garnered significant attention for his eloquent take on what the New Testament — which is what evangelicals draw on and point to — really communicates.
[It is interesting how Frank quotes everyone and anyone but Jesus, and when you quote him, just keep offering a false view of “love”…a “love” that has NO context of morality…a love that has no judgments about what is right and wrong behavior…a ‘love’ that abides in the darkness of moral relativism...a 'love' that has no concern for truth. Boy, Jesus must have been confused when he taught:
“If you need to make a judgment, make a right judgment”, or;
“It would be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea rather than sin against one of these little ones”, or;
“And Jesus was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, unmarried people having sex, thefts, murders, cheating on one’s spouse, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, lack of sexual self control, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” Mark 7.
Furthermore, Jesus says:
“Some religious leaders came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate.” Matt. 19
These sayings of the Real Jesus are ignored and explained away in favor of the made-up jesus and his false 'love' view and the relativistic mantra of "don't judge anyone" (unless of course it's the judging of people who believe homosexual sex is wrong as "hateful bigots"!]
Evaluating its sparse invocations of homosexuality, he notes that there wasn’t awareness back then that same-sex attraction could be a fundamental part of a person’s identity, or that same-sex intimacy could be an expression of love within the context of a nurturing relationship.
[Taking popular psychological beliefs and impugning them on past people groups is a GREAT way to make sure YOUR opinion is the ONLY correct one - it also happens to be wrong reasoning! ‘Those poor ancients like Aristotle or Socrates just did not understand the great moral truths of the contemporary LGBT doctrine!']
“It was understood as a kind of excess, like drunkenness, that a person might engage in if they lost all control, not as a unique identity,” Vines told me.
[Is it possible that two men deciding to have sex is morally wrong and a lack of control? Is it possible that God does exist and He managed to get His Message through via His Messenger, Jesus of Nazareth? And Jesus teaches that loving one another does not include sex? Why is just about any other beliefs possible and acceptable EXCEPT those? "If I speak what is true, why do you not believe me".]
And Vines said that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why view the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?
[Another false argument, the 'almost everyone argument’ (just who is this "everyone" that is referred to? One thing is certain, it is not the vast majority of humans in world history!) This false argument is a favorite of those whose arrogance refuses to consider other viewpoints because they are just so sure that Jesus - whose words and teachings they are largely ignorant of - is misunderstood, as well as close to 100% of human cultures throughout history. The elitists are always right, you know.]
Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry.” Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
[But if Jesus says it is a sin, why should we listen to Creech and Gold?]
All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.
[As a disciple of Jesus, I don’t tell homosexual people that they are an offense. Rather, I don’t tell them anything I would not tell any other human being. If, however, they choose to lack the self control to keep intimate physical contact - or discussions of such - in private, it only proves a point I make in this rebuttal. Furthermore, if they choose to argue that they should be ‘married’, I would remind them that Jesus of Nazareth defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Lastly, if they argue that they should be given the privilege to raise children, I would remind them that two same gender people can NEVER match the healthy dynamics, balance and complimentary synergy that a MOM and a DAD provide. Perhaps the reason homosexuals cannot have children naturally is because they were not designed nor intended to? Homosexuals made a choice to be with a same gender person, why should they not live with the normal and natural consequences of that choice? I thought ‘having your cake and eating it too’ was generally understood to mean one is wrongly trying to have two things which they should not?
Finally, anyone who suggests that homosexual sex is morally wrong will likely be labeled by those who disagree as "hateful". This is erroneous, irrational and hypocritical. Please see the article, To Be A Truly Tolerant Person. As followers of Jesus of Nazareth, we don't condemn people who self-identify as "homosexuals". We are not against them, nor do we wish them harm or anything like that. We don't seek to have laws created that will punish them or anything like that. We do, however, disagree with their beliefs about sexual expression and would like to have our disagreement respected and perhaps our beliefs even listened to and considered. Is this unreasonable? Is it right to label us as 'hateful bigots' because we see Jesus teaching that there ARE constraints on human sexuality that ought to be heeded? What do you think?]
Frank Bruni writes for The New York Times.