A Cure For Depression

By Timothy Shay Arthur,  1859

Obama Twitter Account: that's not him any more but a third party group

"The 29,503,030 people who follow Barack Obama's Twitter account might see his picture, see his name, see that little blue verified account badge and think they're following the President — but it's not him. All of the president's named social media accounts, in fact, have been handed over to a non-partisan, not-for-profit group that isn't overly concerned if you didn't notice the transition. As the first sitting President with a Twitter account, the murky handover raises questions that didn't exist ten years ago — can a politician legally hand over his valuable online identity to an outside group? is it ethical? — and makes clear federal regulators are unprepared to answer them."

"The letter of the law notwithstanding, there's clearly a question of whether or not the seamless transition from an organization directly linked to the president to one that is wholly independent and reliant on donations is ethical."

~ The Atlantic Wire

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry Says Your Kids Do NOT Belong to You, But to the State

This is classic  Socialism/Communism.

Report by Infowars:

“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” says the professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Kids belong to whole communities, she insists, and once we realize this we’ll make “better investments” in government indoctrination of children.



The report states in part:

“Like most people of his ideological bent, Obama either cannot or will not distinguish between society — which is created through peaceful commerce and other forms of private cooperation — and the state — an anti-social artifact built on conquest, coercion, and confiscation of wealth,” writesWilliam Grigg. 

In fact, as Gary Allen noted, it is quite natural.

“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all,” he wrote. “Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”

End quote.

Scripture states that children belong to their parents. Most people understand this basic concept of family, unless they have been indoctrinated by socialism and statism.

Weatherman Terrorist Bill Ayers Confirms WND Correct Report About Obama Fundraising

Worldnetdaily has reported:

Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.

That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.

In an October 2008 interview on MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ show, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, categorically denied the fundraiser was ever held.

Matthews asked Gibbs: “Did [Ayers] have a fundraiser for [Obama], or not?”

Gibbs, who would become the White House spokesman, replied: “No, he did not have a fundraiser for our candidate as he said ten seconds ago.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied/#V5DvxTDmA4lx5QPX.99 

Lady Margaret Thatcher Quotes

Lady Margaret Thatcher passed away yesterday. Here are some of her famous pithy quotes posted at Hello Magazine:

"I started out in life with two great advantages: No money and good parents." 

"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." 

"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."

Is Your College A Christian College?

Is Westmont College a Christian college?

Not when it teaches evolution or promotes Eastern Mysticism.

Go here to see if your college of choice is truly a Christian school.

Here are some helpful questions to ask as you search for a biblical Christian school (if you are truly looking for a CHRISTIAN education):

1. Does your school believe that the Bible and psychology can be integrated?
2. Is Theistic Evolution permitted to be taught as a viable option in the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1?
3. What is your school's doctrinal postion? Is it consistent in all departments or do they deny in practice what they claim in their statement of faith (see #2)?
4. Does your school teach consistently  the plenary, inerrant inspiration of the Holy Spirit of the original text of the Holy Bible?



Is Evolution a neutral and optional view for a Christian? I answer here.

Hab 1:3  Why do You make me see iniquity, And cause me to look on wickedness? Yes, destruction and violence are before me; Strife exists and contention arises.

Who wants to hear the bare, unadulterated truth? What do you do when you see the problems and others do not? 

Homofascists: the term that fits the homosexual agend

DefendProclaimtheFaith.org, a blogger wrote, “In light of all the information that I already posted and current information in this digest, I believe I may have coined a phrase. I am no longer titling the information as homosexual but homofascism. … I am going to use it because it fits this movement.”

It’s not hard to recognize. It’s when:

Homosexual activists charge the medical establishment with “homophobia” for reporting that people living the homosexual lifestyle have a much higher prevalence of HIV and other STDs, and yet using that very same information to complain the group’s health issues are ignored.

Or when a 14-year-old receives death threats for defending traditional/natural marriage.

Or when those who advocate defining marriage as between a man and a woman face intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry....


Or a pastor is threatened with death for speaking against special protections based on sexual orientation.


~Wordnetdaily for the entire article go to Worldnetdaily

Discernment Naysayers Revisited

Due to Tim Challies coming against discernment bloggers yet again* (this time in relation to Sovereign Grace Ministries, CJ Mahaney, and the lawsuit against Mahaney and his  church for not dealing with sexual  abusers--go here for info), I wanted to re-post what I wrote in response to Challies same accusations against us 4 years ago. It still is just as relevent today as it was back then.

(*See my update at the bottom of this article)

April 27, 2009:

Discernment Naysayers

I read with relief Daniel's post *on his response to Tim Challies' arrogant swipe at all Discernment Ministries. While some have taken Challies on, some took the middle road (as usual). Daniel didn't do that. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

In his highly inflammatory post, Challies utilizes zero Scripture to support his case and through analogy with the secular world accuses watchblogs or discernment blogs as utilizing evil as entertainment, merely because such watchblogs act as watchmen in portraying the errors within the professing visible Church. The irony that Challies is, in this one post of his, doing exactly what he accuses the watchblogs as doing (portraying the errors within the professing visible Church) is seemingly lost on him  as it has been written:

Take note of the irony here: what we just read was a blogger concerned about watchbloggers watchblogging, issuing a very pointed criticism against watchbloggers in general, but in point of fact was watchblogging about other watchbloggers on his own blog. [5]

Whether rightly or wrongly, criticism comes to all of us, and to attack the act of discernment and discernment ministries themselves because criticism occurs is utterly fallacious. In fact, since Challies is discerning the watchblogs here, why isn't this act of his done in the flesh?

The second links to New Evangelical Frank Turk's article that discernment is to be exercised within the local church. Since discernment ministries are meant to inform people of error and in so doing contributing to the Great Commission by warning the flock of possible soul-destroying error, Turk's peculiar ecclesia localis centrism logically leads to the conclusion that evangelism is to be done only within the Local Church! This is simply untenable, and therefore Turk's view of the Local Church is in error.

Last of all, it will suffice that Turk is violating his own advice since this article of his is not posted within the context of the Local Church anyway, not to mention Turk is not a pastor or elder so he has disqualified himself on his own principles!
Challies finished by basically repeating the essence of his initial post. In his own words:

But a blog that has as its bread and butter exposing error in the church, and especially error that is completely decontextualized and irrelevant to any of its readers, is a blog I think we ought to avoid. A Christian’s thoughts ought to be dominated by “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). As I said last Monday, “Do I really need to read and to know about the seedy underbelly of the church, when such things happen thousands of miles away, among people I will never meet and in places I will never be? Such news is plenty entertaining, but it is useless to me. It does nothing to further my faith or to cause me to grow in godliness.”

How does Challies know whether a person is operating a watchblog because he is concerned over others, or because he wants to destroy others or entertain others with evil? He doesn't! Also, we shouldn't confuse the motives of the writers with the motives of the readers. If people read it because they want to be entertained by evil, the blame should be placed on the reader not the sharer of information, unless it can be proven that that was the motive of the sharer in posting it also.

Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and Challies with his view of being loving and positivity has manifests his New Evangelical convictions and has done damage to the cause of Christ, with legitimate discernment ministries de-legitimized and the enemies of the Truth emboldened....

End quote. For the full context please go here: Source. (emphasis, mine)

My observations: 

Discernment is seen as a negative gift and therefore is one of the most unwanted and unwelcomed gifts from God by those who claim Christ. Why would a Christ-follower reject God's gift?

Discernment is judged by self-proclaimed non-judgmentalists as judgmental.

Discernment is seen as unloving, but it is precisely because of God's agape that He has gifted some of His children and therefore churches, with it. It is for their protection, as the Great Shepherd of the Sheep should be doing. Likewise a true Undershepherd as well, should appreciate and utilize the Discernment gifts to help aid in the protection of his flock. (You ought to see the persecution of those who have this gift--most wouldn't be able to stand up under such furious fight from "christians"--we're the first to feel the rejection).

People who have a distain for discernment like to determine how the discernment is to operate. These people don’t have the gift themselves, but they sure want to decide how and when and with whom and what it will be used for. Isn’t that hypocritical? Discernment naysayers desire to dictated and control those with the gift, and we know what that means: SHUT UP and SHUT DOWN the gift. It is the height of pride to neglect and reject discernment, for it is a spiritual gift God gives to protect His children and to honor His Word.

Challies, Turk, and their defenders should read what GOD Says about the gifts HE gives:

1Co 12:5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;
1Co 12:6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
1Co 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
1Co 12:11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
1Co 12:18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
1Co 12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
1Co 12:22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,
1Co 12:23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,
1Co 12:24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,
1Co 12:25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
1Co 12:26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

The Discernment Naysayers ARE saying "I have no need of you", when GOD says, "Oh yes you do!". Why do they quarrel with their Maker? And where is the reverence of the Sovereignty of God they say they hold to?

I find it interesting that Challies denies the right, even the necessity of being “negative” for everyone but himself. This is hypocrisy. Apparently only he can determine what is useful for folks and what is not. Now, why is he the determiner of these things? Could it be that he thinks higher of himself and his influence than he ought? I say yes he does.

Rejecting God’s discernment gift is one of the reasons so many people have been captivated by Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll, Paul Tripp, the Emergent Church Movement, the Seeker/Pagan Friendly movement, Eastern Mysticism, Contemplative prayers, prayer labyrinths, etc.

While Challies makes a sweeping smear of Discernment sites that actually help others obey Scripture, he himself embraces the very evil we seek to caution others about.

Challies has applauded Donald Whitney and his book on “Spiritual Disciplines”. While Challies questioned the use of Richard Foster (a New Ager), he managed to swallow the pill despite the poison and then write highly of it. In other words, Challies finds a lot he likes in the book (calling certain actions "spiritual disciplines" even if its not biblically supported, or moreover, promotes a false teacher like Foster), yet he finds little use for Discernment websites that caution against such error as New Ageism, Romanism, carnality, etc? 

I wonder if these Discernment Naysayers would slam Paul, John the Baptist, John, Jesus, Jude, or Peter for being so negative? Are we not to follow their example as they followed Christ’s?

2 Tim. 2: 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 2Tim 2: 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

2Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first,will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. 3John 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

In essence, Challies is decrying what these men wrote. And it should be clear: these letters were circulated to multiple churches. In addition they became even more public as they were Scripture!

See the Sacred Sandwich for more examples of how today’s “evangelical Christians” Discernment Naysayers would take on the apostles or Christ Himself.

So what it comes down to is this: positive = godly, negative = fleshly. Who decided this and how do they define these things, given the "negative" statements made about specific people in Scripture? Or is it ok only if the person is dead? Do we have a new secret standard God to only a few?

End quote.

As I said elsewhere: 

“It seems to me in this Post-Modern “Christianity”, that people are very willing to put up with error (as Scripture defines it), but are quick to slam, insult, and aim shut down those who expose such error. They shoot the messenger.Why don’t they get behind the message at least? Why do they reject a spiritual gift and its benefits, yet DEFEND false teachers and those who promote them? God says "no lie is of the truth".

Those whom God has gifted with discernment often are looked upon as a bother, a thorn in the side of many. The gift of discernment doesn't fit into the Post-Modern thinking in today's "evangelical" circles. 

We are seen as negative, simply because we are showing the difference between truth and error, and are therefore unwilling to abide with the error. 

We are black and white, because God is black and white. 

Truth has no common ground with error. God demands purity in doctrine and practice. Those that want to reach a wide audience to gain applause, to sell books, to get the numbers, will seek to quiet people whom God uses to expose the error. Its likely that such people have accepted error (under the guise of “tolerance” and “love”) and therefore are personally guilty themselves. The light of Truth also shines on them and they don’t like it.” 

As Spurgeon said in "A Reply To Our Critics" in "The Downgrade Controversy":

Quote:We are grateful to the editor of Word and Work for speaking out so plainly. He says:—
"In The Sword and the Trowel for the present month Mr. Spurgeon gives no uncertain sound concerning departures from the faith. His exposure of the dishonesty which, under the cover of orthodoxy, assails the very foundations of faith is opportune in the interests of truth. No doubt, like a faithful prophet in like evil times, he will be called a 'troubler of Israel,' and already we have noticed he has been spoken of as a pessimist; but any such attempts to lessen the weight of his testimony are only certain to make it more effective. When a strong sense of duty prompts public speech it will be no easy task to silence it.
"The preachers of false doctrine dislike nothing more than the premature detection of their doings. Only give them time enough to prepare men's minds for the reception of their 'new views,' and they are confident of success. They have had too much time already, and any who refuse to speak out now must be held to be 'partakers of their evil deeds.' As Mr. Spurgeon says, 'A little plain-speaking would do a world of good just now. These gentlemen desire to be let alone. They want no noise raised. Of course thieves hate watch-dogs, and love darkness. It is time that somebody should spring his rattle, and call attention to the way in which God is being robbed of his glory and man of his hope.'

End quote.

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1Jn 2:15  "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. " 

***UPDATE***

Daniel Chew once again deals with Challie's continued attacks on discernment bloggers. He says in part:

"Regardless, the main issue is that Tim Challies has decided that the best way to take revenge against the person who wronged him, is to condemn "discernment ministries" without distinction or exception, and smear them with the same broad brush as being essentially Pharisees...."

Challies and Discernment Bloggers: his rant continues as does his hypocrisy

It appears that Tim Challies is once again slamming, even slandering discernment bloggers.(Go here for Daniel Chew's recent article on Challies' continued attack on discernment blogs) The watchman, the discerner of discernment bloggers, the critic of critics, the bloggers of bloggers, Challies is this time up in arms about criticism he has gotten. No names of persons or blogs are given; no facts with evidence; only a general swipe at them as bullies, fear mongers, and liars because he says so.

Challies' Hypocrisy:

"The Christian’s attitude toward others, especially in difficult times, is to be one of optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than doubt. We, of all people, should be slow to put aside hope and belief. This means that I owe it to C.J.Mahaney, to SGM and to those who have levelled allegations to believe the best about them, to hope all things for them."

~Challies on the sexual abuse charges against Sovereign Grace Ministries/church headed by CJ Mahaney (the case is going to court; go here for more info)

Yet the standard is different for discernment bloggers who take his public opinions, actions, etc. and test them against Scripture:

"The second lesson is one I am surprised I did not see before: Discernment bloggers often operate by fear...The discernment blogs are too often marked by neither truth nor love. " ~Challies

Indeed, Challies plays the victim when he's at fault for his own actions and double standards. He has repeatedly  given credence to enemies of the Cross (Rick Warren, Mark Driscoll Ann Voskamp, Donald Witney), shows little anger toward the nastiness going on at SGM, and then complains when his error is revealed by the light of truth.

The hypocrisy of Challies is that while he continues to slam discernment bloggers by slander (he claims they operate on fear and lies--accusations he doesn't back up in any specific way--just accusations of nameless people), he himself wrote a book on discernment. He allows himself to be the discernment blogger of discernment bloggers. He is unwilling to assign motives and indeed gives wide grace to the SGM sexual abuse charges ( or  false teacher Rick Warren for example), but is generous with his assigning motives and allegations against discernment bloggers that he doesn't like. He is unwilling to give the same grace and thus withhold his opinion and slander that he demands of everyone re: himself. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

If Challies is upset with bloggers exposing his error, then he should either stop his error or stop reading about himself.  Perhaps he's in the wrong field of choice. Liberals want to consort with the enemy of Christ and then complain with those in Christ expose their disloyalty toward HIM and His flock. You can't play with fire and then complain when the fire department shows up with hoses turned on and dowsing the entire house. Its your fault for playing with the matches and starting a fire.

Challies' standard for everyone else but himself is hypocritical. Did he personally try to approach those he claims have slandered him? Does he see into their hearts to see if they have love or not? He knows their motives?  Did he verify the facts? Oh, he had them from their website? Cannot the same be said for those bloggers he's railing against? So how is his violation of his own standrd ok? If a person consorts with false teachers, they have invited rightful criticism. 2John 9-11 makes this very clear.

By trying to denigrate a much needed spiritual gift like discernment, into something so nasty he uses it like a cuss word (perhaps now he and others like him will just use the phrase "the D word"), labeling it as gossip, intimidation, lies, slander, bullying, merely shows that he can't stand under the weight of discernment. Are there people who really  do say nasty things? Sure. But so what? Challies  yet again makes sweeping generalizations and lumps all discernment bloggers into his trash can as worthless and gossiping bullies. A true mature believer won't keep reading about himself and then write a whole article about how he's a "victim" of his own public words. One thing I've learned is that when "famous online Christian experts" get publicly exposed for their error, their pride comes out in major ways. The non-committed, take-no-sides men suddenly take a side vehemently and come out slandering others themselves. 

God Settled The Matter: there's no room for debating

"When God has spoken, that settles the matter. No room is left for debating or reasoning. It is vain for us to discuss and dispute. Our duty is to submit. The Word itself must regulate our worship and service, as well as everything else. Human opinions, human traditions, custom, convenience, have nothing to do with it. Divine revelation is our only Court of Appeal."

(A.W. Pink - Gleanings In Exodus).

To debate an issue God has already spoken on is to engage the Serpent who says "Hath God said?". We instead are to demolish, utterly destroy all arguments and thoughts that set themselves up against Christ, NOT entertain them as valid or an option!


2Co 10:5  We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

1Co 1:18  For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 

1Co 1:19  For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 

1Co 1:20  Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 

1Co 1:21  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 

How To Know That You Are Dying Spiritually

2Co 13:5  Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

White Liberals The Worst Racists

Dr. Ben Carson sums it up well:

Dr. Ben Carson on Tuesday blasted his critics for heat he’s taken recently over controversial remarks on gay marriage, calling his white liberal detractors “the most racist out there.”


“They want to shut us up completely, and that’s why the attacks against me have been so vicious,” Carson said on the Mark Levin radio show. “I represent an existential threat to them. They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me, they can’t find anything else to delegitimize me, so they take my words, misinterpret them, and try to make it seem that I’m a bigot.”

Levin said Carson was being targeted for his race.

“You’re attacked also in many respects because of your race,” Levin said. “You’re not supposed to talk like this, and a lot of white liberals just don’t like it, do they?”

“They’re the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box,” Carson responded. “How could you dare come off the plantation?”

~The Hill

Others who have also been in the same position: Larry Elder, Dr. Thomas Sowell, and Dr. Walter Williams.

Homosexuality Is Always Wrong

All People Are Sinners And Need Salvation

Rom 3:9  What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
Rom 3:10  as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11  THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12  ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

Rom 3:18  "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." 

Rom 3:21  But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 

Rom 3:22  even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 

Rom 3:23  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 

Rom 3:24  being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 

Rom 3:25  whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 

Rom 3:26  for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 

Repent and turn to Christ Jesus and trust in HIS finished work, HIS righteousness, HIS deity and Lordship. Apart from salvation by Him and in Him, all men will spend eternity in Hell for their eternal sin. Today is the day to see the horror if your sin before a thrice Holy God, Whose laws you have violated. Today is the day to bow before Him and cry out for His mercy. You have sinned against HIM and because God is just, you must be dealt with as a violator of His laws. This will be either through the Person and work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ who paid the full penalty for many sinners while He was without sin Himself, OR by you paying personally in Hell for eternity, having zero forgiveness because you refused to come to Christ on His terms, acknowledging your wicked sin before the holy holy holy One of Israel.

Homosexuality Is Not The "New Black"

Excerpts from Voddie Baucham's article , "Gay Is Not the New Black" (please read the entire article for the full context along with all footnotes):

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?

Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage.

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff), and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. 

End quote.

For the full article that includes all footnotes and more treatment of the issue, go here.

God's Word

True Marriage

Any other attempt whether through living together unwed or as homosexuals, is merely an imposter and a failure while trying to mimic the real deal. It will never be legitimate nor have the approval and blessing of God because anything short of a true marriage as defined by God is earning His wrath as the result of violating what HE has created and instituted.


Gen 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 8  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen 1:31  God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 

Gen 2:21  So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22  The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24  For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25  And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. 

Biblical Definition of Marriage

Gen 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28  God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen 2:22  The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24  For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

This also means I am against homosexuality because it violates God's holy laws found in His holy Word.

So You're A Democrat and You Claim to be Pro-Choic?