This Week in Review - 3/10/2017

And now another weekly roundup.

Heidelberg 80: We Don’t Need Any Footnotes from The Heidelblog - An interesting explanation of Question 80 from the Heidelberg catechism, and whether or not it truly misrepresents the position of Roman Catholicism regarding the Lord's Supper.

The Reformed Reject Lent In Basle In 1534 from The Heidelblog - Article XI from the First Confession of Basle, regarding the topic of fasting during Lent.

Why Did Arminianism "Win"? from The Heidelblog - An article discussing how we went from the teachings of Jacob Arminius (which was closer to Calvinism) to historical Arminianism, to today's Evangelical scene in western Christian.

Reformed Books Online - I discovered this recently. It's a treasure trove of resources on various subjects.

The Book of Revelation: How Difficult Was Its Journey into the Canon? from Canon Fodder - A good, short read on the history of Revelation's entry into the canon, who objected to it, when those objections were raised, etc.

The Poisonous Songs of Arius from Mystagogy Resource Center - With all the debate still going on about Jesus Culture, Bethel Church, IHOP-KC, Misty Edwards, etc., this article was a timely read. In essence, the Arians employed music and easy-to-memorize songs in order to spread their doctrine. As the article cites, even Athanasius had to comment on it.

What Led You To Become An Atheist? Some Surprising Answers from David Murray - An interesting summary of a study on what made a group of people atheists, and what we can do to improve this situation. Some of the reasons aren't all that surprising, honestly.

The Mailbag: Which Bible Do You Recommend? from Michelle Lesley - There are dozens upon dozens of "Which translation should I use?" posts out there, but this one summarizes things nicely.

A Day Without A Woman from Femina Girls - A response to the whole "day without a woman" nonsense that feminists had a while ago, as well as a warning to not pay the "danegeld" to feminists.

Sharing Heaven with Serial Killers from The Gospel Coalition - A reflection on the story of Jeffrey Dahmer's repentance, and what it means for all of us.

Cain’s Wife—Who Was She? from Answers in Genesis - An analysis of where Cain's wife came from, and what this means about interpreting scripture.

When Does Personhood Begin? Part I from Cross Examined - A good, thorough beginning discussion on the philosophical arguments behind personhood within the abortion debate.

Gay Rights Activists Bully Authors of LGBT Study from Answers in Genesis - The story is from November 29, 2016, but nonetheless it's an example of how there's an agenda being pushed that's not very concerned about truth and reality.

And in the humor section...

Some of the longer "carol" "conversations" with H/T to Frog Morton - How easy is it to troll internet atheists? A troll account (probably a Twitter bot) named Carol, aka "christianmom18," posts some short, simple statements and finds out. Most amusing is when she corrects people on the proper use of "your." Also amusing is just how some people continue to respond even when it's clear it's a troll. Warning: As might be expected, there's bad language, crude humor, blasphemous statements against God, etc. If you don't want to see these, don't click on the link. I'm sharing this simply because it demonstrates how people who claim to be rational against emotional opinion can betray their own emotional state when faced with nothing more than contrary thought.

The Legacy of Fred Phelps

At the time of this writing, Fred Phelps is in a hospital due to what his Westboro Baptist Church calls "health problems," though rumors are that he may be near death.

Some people are rejoicing in this. For my own part, let me clarify I don't glory in anyone's death, be it Osama bin Laden or Jim Henson. Fred Phelps' family need our prayers - not only for the grief they will no doubt go through, but so that they will eventually repent of their warped teachings, and follow Christ and His true teachings.

I think there are two obvious things that need to be said:

First, Fred Phelps group was what amounted to a cult. They were centered around his teachings and beliefs, and centered their understanding of reality and the Bible around the thinking of Fred Phelps. It was not Christ speaking out of the mouths of those people at those protests, but Fred Phelps and the top leaders of the Westboro cult.

Second, there can be no doubt that Fred Phelps caused irrevocable damage for other Christians hoping to witness to homosexuals, and he set back the ability to witness to homosexuals and speak to even non-homosexuals on the matter by perhaps about ten years. Especially in the realm of social media, anyone who has some form of contention against same sex marriage or homosexuality is often compared to a Westboro crazy. Sometimes, even when the subject wasn't homosexuality, anyone expressing strong religious beliefs was put on the same level as Fred Phelps and his ilk. They became the icon of any group - homophobic or not - that opposed same sex marriage and the sin of homosexuality. Some will contend here that those who appeal to the Westboro cult in the face of any opposition to homosexuality or same sex marriage are committing a straw man or genetic fallacy would, of course, be absolutely right - but there is no denying that Fred Phelps did much damage to those who would witness to their homosexual friends and acquaintances out of love rather than hatred.

If he is to pass away (and I do not write this post hoping he does so), Christians will need to ask themselves how they will gradually recover in the days following. We should pray that Westboro, as an organization, eventually dies off in the wake of less charismatic or firm leadership, and that it becomes simply an embarrassing memory in the issue's history. We should likewise pray that God will open up possibilities for us to witness to those homosexuals struggling under their sin, and offer them hope in the light of the Gospel of Christ, and not the Gospel of Irrational Hatred.

Podcast: Morality and Same Sex Marriage

In this episode we discuss the topic of same sex marriage and the moral standards surrounding it.

The Sham of Love Equality

When the Supreme Court met a while ago to begin deliberation on the issue of DOMA and Prop-8, and then released their recent decisions on both, I saw some of the usual repeated mantras over social media. "Hooray for love equality!" some said. Others put up the equal-sign for their profile pic, saying to their friends, "This means I favor equal rights for all!" And then there is the "Equal Love; Equal Rights" slogan that many have repeated. Yet when I have engaged this worldview in discussion and dialogue, I can't help but notice that there is a certain level of hypocrisy and inconsistency found within.

The biggest problem is where this presupposition defines marriage, which boils down to "two people feeling emotionally satisfied with one another." The idea is that if two people of the same gender feel satisfied in one another, then why shouldn't they be allowed to be together and even marry? It's the classic "who cares so long as the person's happy" fallacy. If you attempt to qualify marriage in any way (the interaction of the genders, the ability to procreate and produce families, the need for a mother and father figure on the child, etc.), they find all that unnecessary, and toss it out. They demand that we make the definition of marriage be the satisfaction found in a union between two people.

Of course, what happens when this same standard used for homosexuals, and this same definition of marriage, is applied to other areas? What of "intergenerational" relationships, such as between a 50-year old man and a 15-year old boy? If it is entirely consensual, and the two feel emotionally satisfied, why is it wrong? If a brother and sister fall in love and decide to marry in an "interfamilial" relationship, and the two feel emotionally satisfied with one another, why is it wrong? Shouldn't any and all examples of two people feeling emotionally satisfied be permitted and accepted by the government under the law? This isn't even covering the issue of why, if it's possible for more than two people to feel satisfied together, polygamy should be illegal.

When these issues are brought up, usually two responses are given:

1) Straw men. People will accuse you of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. The fact is, this isn't what we are doing - no one is saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa, or that homosexuality and incest are the same thing. What we are attempting to do is to show the shallowness of this marriage definition, and just how weak a position it is by taking the same presupposition and presenting it in a similar situation. This is especially important as, at the time of this writing, those who promote "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriage make the exact same arguments made by those who promote same sex marriage. Why does the position of "equal love; equal rights" not work for them?

2) Inconsistency. The person who just a moment ago did not like you qualifying marriage...will now begin to qualify marriage. They might bring forward reasons why an elder and a minor shouldn't be married, or why siblings shouldn't be married, or why a marriage shouldn't involve more than two people - and some of their reasons might be perfectly valid and legitimate. The problem is that they are holding "interfamilial" and "intergenerational" marriages on a different standard than they are same sex marriage. On the one hand, they deny that you should qualify marriage; on the other hand, they affirm you should qualify marriage. In this case, even the same sex supporter - though unintentionally - realizes that a definition of marriage as "two people emotionally satisfied with one another" is a feeble one at best.

From this comes an obvious conclusion: the idea of "equal love; equal rights" and "love equality" is simply a sham. It's simply an emotional slogan for the cause of same sex marriage, so that its supporters can cry it out and feel as if they have done something grand. Yet they do not really approve "equal love; equal rights" because they believe that if a brother and sister have fallen in love and desire to fulfill their dreams of marriage - perhaps even adopt a child and raise it with love - then it should be opposed by the law. If a 25-year old and a 14-year old fall in love and desire to begin marriage, they oppose it and believe statutory rape laws should stand. It is clear that even in their minds, not all "love" is equal, and not all "love" should be given the same rights other "love" is given.

It is popular for those in the same sex marriage camp to compare those who oppose it to the racists of the 1960's and those who opposed interracial marriage (a fallacy I've examined before), but even in their case this same analogy can be lodged their way. When they support the marriage between homosexuals but deny marriage to other groups who, by their own logic appear perfectly legitimate, then they are no different than those in the 1930's who opposed the Nuremberg laws against Jews in Nazi Germany, but approved of the Jim Crow laws against blacks here in the United States. They are no different than someone who might approve of their child marrying an Asian person, but not approve of them marrying a black person. Already there are voices in this country, seeing the privileges given to homosexuals, who are beginning to ask that "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriages be permitted as well. No doubt in decades to come, many who supported same sex marriage will find themselves opposing the governmental affirmation of "interfamilial" marriage - or any other kind of distortion of how even nature has always defined marriage and true union - and they too will be called racists and intolerant bigots by the coming generations who have been raised to emotionally respond and parrot popular arguments, all for the sake of a new wave of public opinion.

Of course, we know why mankind is inconsistent, and why they desire to support their favorite sin, even in the face of an inconsistent worldview.

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. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [Romans 1:28-32]

The only reason we have not yet seen greater immorality find greater approval in our culture is because God has thus far restrained it. If we inspire more judgment, more judgment shall come. Man's natural state is open rebellion against God, and their denial of Him will come in many forms, whether it be in false religions, apostate churches, or embracing sins such as this. I saw someone on social media say the Supreme Court made the right decision despite God's intentions. Yet God is still in control - indeed, the spreading of sin is by God's sovereign will, so that His judgment may be true and His cause glorified (cf. Ro 9:22-24). The increase of sin is not a sign that God has failed, only that God has judged, and is bringing further judgment.

How should we take all this? We should be praying for the repentance of friends, family, and neighbors. We should be praying not that they would be correctly aligned in politics, or that they would understand this one issue (for your opinion on homosexuality does not save you), but rather that they would come to an understanding that they themselves are sinners deserving of judgment. There is a natural law, even if they deny it, and it is God alone, not the Supreme Court or any other higher court, who will have the final say on what unfolds on the day of judgment. On that day, all men will be held accountable for their sins, but only those purified by the blood of Christ will be deemed innocent. Regardless of the state of our society, we should all ponder the state of our souls, and remember that no matter how many years we live, eternity shall be a long time. Let us remember that as we look upon society and those who oppose God - and let us not forget that once, too, we were like them. God bless.

Why the Racism Analogy Doesn't Work

It's common for many to compare the topic of same-sex marriage with the issue of interracial marriage - that is, advocates of same-sex marriage will compare their opponents with those who vehemently opposed interracial marriages in the 1950's and 60's. While popular in many circles and parroted uncritically in social media, this argumentation has some faults.

Firstly, it's just an empty personal attack. "Oh, you don't agree with me?! Well, you're just like a racist!" In some ways, it's no different than Godwin's Law: you're in essence going to an extreme example to broad brush your enemies and write them off to others as "the bad guys," all without addressing their arguments. It might also be worth noting that racism tends to stem from the belief that a person of another race is a lesser or subservient human being; while there are those who treat homosexuals in a similar manner, the large portion of those who oppose same-sex marriage do so not because they see homosexuals as lesser beings or non-citizens.

Secondly, homosexuality is something you can hide - race isn't. Barring any skin condition outside your control, you can't hide being a black person. To paraphrase one black comedian: "You gays have a closet you can go in and out of - I don't!"

Thirdly, the issue of America's racial tension is different than that of her homosexuals, and it's unfair to try to tie the two together - if not a bit extreme. It's a bit like how some people, upon hearing of some persecution in some country, immediately jump to the Holocaust as an example, essentially comparing any persecution or a killing of any group of people to the Holocaust, even if the situations or motivations are entirely different. To paraphrase a black scholar I once heard on CSPAN: "While I sympathize with homosexuals, I don't like it when they compare their cause to the civil rights movement - Ellen Degeneres never had to pick cotton at the crack of a whip."

Fourthly, the question of whether or not a black man could marry a white woman was a matter of whether two races should marry...it did not redefine marriage as an institution. A black man and a white woman together still function as husband and wife the way they should in marriage, and the man and woman still function in their roles pertaining to the individual genders. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, completely redefines marriage and the roles normally played by the genders in a heterosexual relationship. It forgoes the effect the genders have on one another, the ability for the two genders to reproduce together, and the roles the two genders play in the raising of children. Ultimately it turns the definition of marriage into emotional satisfaction between two people - a shallow foundation at best (and one that, inevitably and logically, opens the door for things like incestuous relationships).

Silly Arguments Part III

Well kids, we've been graced yet again by face palming Picard, which means it must be time again for another silly argument.

I saw the image on the left shared on social media. It's a sign held up that reads: "Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." I thought I would provide a brief response to it.

Firstly, the analogy here makes no sense. A person is on a diet to abstain from food - they would only be angry at the doughnut eater because they might desire the doughnut themselves. By contrast, people opposed to same sex marriage are not desiring it (let alone homosexual fornication) for themselves. The reason one might oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs is not because of personal preference or abstinence, but because it contradicts divine truths. Comparing it to a doughnut being eaten while someone's on a diet is truly comparing apples with oranges.

Secondly, no one's "angry." Well OK, the Westboro cult, maybe, but they're special any way.

Thirdly, some might contend that the picture is trying to say, "Religious people are against same sex marriage because they think it's wrong, same as those who follow a diet think eating a doughnut is wrong." Even with this understanding, however, the analogy completely fails, because even those on a diet might recognize a doughnut as a legitimate food to eat (even if unhealthy), whereas a person who upholds belief in a Divine Creator, who has designed the natural order, are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is completely contradictory to said natural order. A closer analogy would be a person on a diet advising another person not to eat a rubber tire.

Truth be told, and being perfectly blunt, this is a really, really, really, really, really, reeeeeeally bad argument. I saw this being shared and people saying "Wow, that's awesome!" in response, and couldn't help but think...really, people? And some of these people were individuals who claimed to be Christians - do they truly not understand the difference between being on a diet and believing in a just, holy, righteous God?

We seriously need to pray for them.

The Homophobia Card

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a certain abuse of the term homophobia. At it's very core meaning, homophobia would normally refer to someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals. In common application, it refers to someone who hates homosexuals. In its most popular application, it refers to someone who might even just disagree with homosexuality or same sex marriage. This is what one might call the "homophobia card."

Perhaps the problem with the term homophobia is the same problem found in the use by some of the term anti-Catholic - that is, it is used in such a broad way that it encompasses several viewpoints while failing to distinguish between them. Therefore, the irrational hatred against homosexuals by groups such as the Westboro Baptist cult is put on the same level as those with more rational arguments, such as Christian apologists James White and Matt Slick. What this permits people to do is, instead of being able to identify the different issues and arguments to prepare a better defense of their position, they rather invent an umbrella term against which they can vent emotional arguments. It's a borderline straw man argument that most people would probably feel far more comfortable arguing with instead of developing their own position and learning to respond to what the other side has to offer.

Our society is quickly turning into one in which there is no distinction between tolerance and acceptance, or between simply disagreeing and vitriolic hatred. The coming generation is not being trained to understand two differing viewpoints and be able to respond as if you could defend both, but rather are being trained to respond emotionally for their own case, with no other recourse but insults and repeated arguments. If it continues this way, it does not bode well for our society.

Lawrence O'Donnell and the Bible

Chris Rosebrough over at Fighting for the Faith reviews some erroneous comments made by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell regarding the Bible, homosexuality, and "burning prostitutes at the stake."

"Gay Christianity" Refuted

Below is a link to James White's presentation from last March on the presentation by Matthew Vines that supports homosexuality from the context of scripture and the Christian worldview.

The link to the entire presentation can be found here.

The Westboro Law

There is an internet adage known as Godwin's Law, which states that the longer a debate or conversation goes on, the more likelihood something or someone will be compared to Hitler or the Nazis (this is also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum). For example:

Person A: "I believe in tighter gun control laws."
Person B: "You know who else believed that? Hitler!"

Or as an another example:

Person A: "President Obama wears pants. You know who else wore pants? The Nazis!"

OK, that one was a little exaggerated, but you get the point. Some instances of this can be just as silly. It's basically a logical fallacy of responding to something by jumping to an extreme example of that position or opinion, and when there's very little to connect the two (or at the very least, a very slim connection). It is also an attempt to make the other side look bad by striking at the audience's or reader's emotions.

Might I now propose a new law? I call it the Westboro Law. What is this new law, you ask? It's the idea that the longer a debate or conversation either over morality or religion goes on, the more likelihood someone is going to make a reference or analogy to the Westboro Baptist cult (I refuse to call them a church). For example:

Person A: "I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."
Person B: "You know who else believes that? The Westboro Baptist people!"

Or even (as I once personally experienced):

Person A: "[insert religious arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality at all]"
Person B: "Wow! You're just like the Westboro Baptist crazies!"

Just like Godwin's Law, this seeks to jump to an extreme analogy simply to make the other side look or sound bad. Because Fred Phelps and his cronies are the poster children for how to do your religion wrong, people cling to them whenever they want to make other religious people or certain moral beliefs look bad. This, likewise, is attempting to appeal to the emotional responses of those reading or listening to the conversation or topic. It is also just as fallacious.

Now what would we call this? Reductio ad Westborum, perhaps? Latin is not my strong point...

A Double Standard in Liberal Theology

Michael Horton: "Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces"

A great article from Michael Horton in regards to homosexuality, what scripture teaches, and the matter of application. As always, Michael Horton presents a good, balanced view of the pros and cons regarding an issue.

Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces | Christianity Today

Bad Arguments Often Used Regarding Moral Issues

These are just some things I've encountered in the past few months I felt like commenting on. I might update or expand on this as time progresses.

Argument #1: Who cares if a person does x if they don't hurt anybody?

The idea here seems to be that, if no physical pain is involved, then there is really nothing bad happening. For example, who cares about same sex marriage if the two individuals in a same sex relationship aren't "hurting anyone"?

Of course, speaking generally, this argument fails because most people might recognize that there are certain immoral acts which do not cause any pain or "hurt" on an individual. A kleptomaniac, for example, doesn't "hurt" anybody, but his stealing of items that aren't his is still a crime and an immoral act. A vandal who does graffiti on the side of a highway bridge doesn't "hurt" anybody, and yet it is still considered wrong.

If we were to likewise apply this across the board, I think we would find that those who make this argument are not consistent. Let's return to our earlier example of same sex marriage. Would those who use this argument to support that likewise use it to support incestuous relationships? After all, if a brother and sister are in love, can't they be accepted by society, since they aren't "hurting anybody"? If a 50-year old man meets with a 15-year old boy and they engage in physical relations that are completely consensual, why should the 50-year old man be arrested and charged with a crime? He isn't "hurting anybody." There are even some today who will argue that in such situations (ie., a 50-year old man engaging in a consensual relationship with a 15-year old boy) there is absolutely nothing wrong as no one is being hurt and it's entirely consensual. Why is such argumentation invalid in this case but not in select others?

The fact is, physical (or even mental) pain does not need to be inflicted for something to be labeled "wrong." Anyone can recognize that some things which are immoral likewise do not inflict physical harm against a person. Furthermore, refusing to apply this reasoning to a similar situation for superficial reasons is simply special pleading.

Argument #2: You shouldn't be concerned with x because it doesn't directly affect you.

This very notion, that something has to directly affect the person before they can declare it good or bad, is simply fallacious. There were many Americans who wanted to get involved in World War II despite the fact that the war, in and of itself, was not directly affecting America the way it was other nations. There were many white Americans not directly affected by the Jim Crow laws, and yet they spoke out against them. There are many in the west today who see atrocities committed in African or Asian countries and yet speak out, despite the fact they are not directly affected by it. A person might hear about the husband of a woman they know who is cheating on her, and - despite the fact they may be able to keep a safe distance from the drama - may choose to call out adultery for the evil that it is.

A person does not have to be directly affected by an issue in order to say it is wrong or immoral. A moral question is not dependent upon the relative distance (literal or metaphorical) to the person pondering the moral question, nor on how the individual issue affects the person making the argument.

In fact, there is much inconsistency in this position, in the sense that the person making it is oftentimes defending an act or world view which likewise doesn't affect them. Hence we are led to conclude that it is all right to pontificate on a subject so long as it is in the positive, but it is not all right if it is in the negative. This presents us a case of special pleading.

Argument #3: You shouldn't be so concerned with x. You should be worried about something like y.

This is the red herring fallacy, where the person attempts to shift the topic to another that might be somewhat but not entirely related. Even if someone might argue that y is indeed worse than x, a dilemma is still present: that y is worse than x does not negate the qualities of x, and hence both are still bad. For example, arguing "rape is not as bad as genocide" does not negate that rape is still bad, and hence bringing genocide into the equation contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Argument #4: Who cares as long as the person is happy?

The idea here is that, if the individual person has reached a subjective level of happiness, what they have done can be perceived to be right and proper, even if just for them..

Of course, a person doesn't have to be a master rhetorician to see just how bad this kind of argumentation is. There are those who get happy causing physical pain. There are those who get happy over seeing someone else suffer. There are those who get happy committing crime. There are some who make horrible life decisions with the excuse that they "just want to do what makes them happy." There are some who suffer from what is known as body identity disorder, where they cannot truly feel happy unless an arm or leg which they believe does not belong is amputated.

Just because an individual thing or action makes a person feel happy does not mean it is automatically right. Happiness should not be made equatable with morally correct.

Argument #5: This person can do whatever they want!

This is the classic "It's a free country!" argument. The reader has probably heard various modes of it. "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it." "It's my life, I can do anything I want with it." Etc.

Here's the fallacy with this position: that a person has a certain ability to do something does not automatically mean they are above criticism in regards to that action. Let me put it this way: I am perfectly free to go out, get a loan I can't possibly afford for a super expensive car, then go out and purposefully, just for the kicks, total that car in a wreck. I'm perfectly free to do that of my own will...however, someone has just as much right to tell me to my face, "Dude, that had to be the dumbest thing you could have done." Someone else might say to that person, "Leave him alone! He's free to do as he pleases!", but that doesn't deny what the first person said. It neither contradicts the argument that what I did was dumb, nor does it even directly address it.

Responding to an argument with what amounts to "I'll do what I want!" is a response that is common among ten-year olds, but shouldn't be common among adults.

Argument #6: These people didn't ask to be born under this moral code.

Is that so? Did you also know that no one ever asked to be born under any moral code or system of law? I didn't ask to be born under the Constitution - should I consider the Constitution to be irrelevant to what my rights should be? When I moved to Virginia, no one asked me, as I crossed the border, "Are you OK with Virginia's laws? Oh, you aren't? OK, they don't apply to you, then." When a murderer is sent to court, he doesn't get off free simply by telling the judge, "Hey wait, I never got asked to be placed under these rules regarding murder!"

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that a law or moral code is right simply because it exists or it has jurisdiction; I am arguing that it is fallacious to say someone should be free from their obligation or applicability to a law or moral code simply because they've "never been asked."

A Fallacy Regarding Jesus and Same Sex Marriage

In more than a few times, I have heard the argument made against religious beliefs regarding homosexuality in general something to the effect of "Jesus never talked about same sex marriage," or "Jesus never talked about homosexuality." This is meant either to imply that Jesus was all right with both subjects, or that, since he never spoke on it, Christians shouldn't dwell on it for too long. There are, however, four issues that arise from this argument and demonstrate just how fallacious it is:

1) It was not an issue at that time. Jesus was a devout Jew who was not opposed to the Mosaic Law, in particularly the moral law. While he often attacked the traditions of the Pharisees or the human wisdom of the Sadducees, both of which had been added to the Law, he never once lifted a finger to attack anything God had written. At the time Christ lived, in the area Christ lived, and to the audience spoke to for the most part, there was not rampant homosexuality or sodomy as there was elsewhere in the world, and the question of what defined marriage was at that point not an issue. Therefore, to bring up that Jesus never spoke directly on homosexuality or same sex marriage is about as relevant as bringing up that Athanasius never spoke directly on post-modern thought.

2) Jesus still identified marriage as being between a man and a woman. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, the following dialogue occurs:

And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6]

Note that when speaking about marriage, Christ refers to Genesis 2 and states God had made mankind "male and female," and that, in regards to marriage, a man shall leave his father and mother (not simply "his guardians" or a vague "two parental units"), and hold fast not to his "significant other" or "civil union partner," but "his wife." In this context the two people "become one flesh" in marriage. Note also that Christ is speaking here entirely of a heterosexual relationship, both in regards to the parents and to the couple getting married. Therefore, Christ's view of marriage is one that was isolated to heterosexual relationships alone. There was no room for homosexual relationships.

3) Christ's handpicked leaders condemned homosexuality. The apostle Paul especially condemned it: while talking of "dishonorable passions," he makes mention of women who "exchanged natural relations" and men who "gave up natural relations with women and were consumed by passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27); he said that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9); he called it "contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10). The apostles, including Paul, were handpicked by Christ personally, and were chosen and entrusted to carry on his will and doctrine, ergo if one takes issue with how they interpret sin and morality, they shall have to take it up with Christ himself.

4) Christian theology takes into consideration the Bible as a whole. Those who might still persist in the previous point with "Paul and Co. are still not Jesus" are not considering how Christian theology views scripture as a whole, which is that all scripture is "God-breathed" and sourced directly to God (2 Tim 3:16). The only Christians who isolate doctrines to literally only the words of Christ believe what is called "Red Letterism" (referring to the habit of some Bibles to put the letters of Christ in red), and they are generally not considered orthodox in such thinking. We must also remember that Christ was God, and as all scripture is sourced to God, all scripture is therefore sourced to him, ergo we cannot isolate our inspired writ to only what words God the Son said during his earthly ministry.

Most important of all, of course, is the fact that Christ spoke out against all sin, heterosexual and homosexual alike. A man coveting after a woman for lustful purposes made him guilty of adultery, and made him just as much a sinner before God as a man embracing homosexual desires. It was for such individuals that Christ came into this world, so that he may absolve men of their sins and make them righteous before God. "I have not come to call the righteous," Christ said, "but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). No man is a greater sinner than another, but "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). If this post has grieved anyone, I pray that it does not merely give them empty grief, but that they would be "grieved into repenting" (2 Cor 7:9), and that God may "perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). One day, God will judge us all through Christ Jesus, and we will be cast either into eternal punishment or into eternal life. Until then, you have a chance to repent and place your trust in this beautiful Gospel that God has given mankind through His Christ. God bless.

The "Animals Do It Too" Fallacy

An argument made by some to support homosexuality (or at the very least homosexual relationships) is that homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom too, and hence humans should be accepting of it. Of course, this is an example of special pleading - homosexuality is not the only tendency seen in the animal kingdom. Some other tendencies observed among animals include:

• Cannibalism, where animals of the same species do indeed eat one another. Chimpanzees sometimes eat one another, as do some forms of snakes, insects and other animals.
• Sexual Cannibalism, where the female eats the male either before, during or after they engage in sex. This is most commonly seen in some types of spiders, scorpions, and most famously praying mantises.
• Filial Cannibalism, perhaps the most infamous form of cannibalism in the animal kingdom, is where one of the parents or both eat the young. Most people attribute this to hamsters and gerbils, but it can also be seen in some species of apes, pigs, rabbits, fishes and insects.
• Infanticide, where an animal may intentionally kill (not necessarily eat) either their own young or the young of other broods. This can be seen in many types of rodents, large cat breeds, birds, fish and others.
• Polygamy, where a male has various female partners in simultaneous relationships. An alpha male lion may live with and impregnate an entire tribe of lionesses, and some prairie dog males will live with four or more females in a tight community. This behavior is also seen in many forms of horses, fishes, mice and apes. 

Should humans practice all of these simply because they are found in the animal kingdom? Should humans be all right with others practicing these things simply because animals do them as well?

The Struggle Against Reality

This is from Monty Python's 1979 film Life of Brian. It's a little shocking how this scene is incredibly relevant to today's society.

Was the Faithful Centurion Gay?

This question might immediately make most of my regular readers do somersaults. I nearly did the first time I encountered this argument, told to me by a friend. The argument deals with the faithful Centurion found both in Matthew's gospel and Luke, and deals mainly with Matthew's passage.

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."

Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment. [Matthew 8:5-13; NASB]

Those who read this passage may immediately be wondering, So...where is homosexuality in all of that? The key in the argument is the original Greek of verse 6:

καὶ λέγων κύριε ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται έν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος

The centurion refers to his "servant" with ὁ παῖς (shown in bold). The argument is that the Greek word refers to a homosexual lover. To quote one presentation on this argument:

In the most common English translations, we read this passage and have no idea the context of this encounter between the Roman centurion and Jesus. The key word is "pais", which is often translated as "servant" or "boy". However, most scholars believe that the term pais in the ancient world was a well-known idiom referring to a male concubine (often younger) and an explicitly homosexual relationship.

Kenneth J. Dover, noted authority on ancient Greece, in his book, Greek Homosexuality, tells us the younger partner in a homosexual relationship is called pais or paidika.

Dr. Robert Gagnon, arguably the foremost anti-gay scholar of our day, writes that pais can refer to a partner in a homosexual relationship. He writes:

“boy” (pais) could be used of any junior partner in a homosexual relationship, even one who was fullgrown.” Dr. Robert Gagnon (The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 163, footnote 6.)

In fact, the overwhelming historical evidence (and perhaps, the implication of Luke 7:2, which literally translates as "had much love for") is that the Centurion and his "pais" were likely involved in a homosexual relationship that was very common in the ancient world. It is worth noting that this kind of relationship is one that today, we would almost universally condemn since it was between and older man and a young pubescent boy. However, these relationships were very common. [source]

Let's review the problems with this argument in two parts...

1) The Lexical Game

The "lexical game" is what I refer to when a person takes the various definitions of a word, finds the one they like best, and essentially ignores the context or use of the word in the individual passage. While παῖς is indeed the word used here in Matthew's account of the faithful centurion, it is not the only time the word is used in the Gospels. Some other times the exact form of παῖς is found:

• In Matthew 12:38, in reference to Christ
• In Matthew 17:18, in reference to the young man whom Christ expelled a mute demon from for the boy's father
• In Luke 2:43, in which it talks of "the boy Jesus" staying behind in Jerusalem
• In Luke 8:54, in reference to the young girl whom Christ raises from the dead
• In John 4:51, in reference to the nobleman's child rising at Christ's command

As we can see here, there are at least five other references to παῖς outside of the faithful Centurion story, and none of them deal, within the context, of a young homosexual lover. Some of them are obviously not speaking of a sexual connotation (such as Matt 12:38 and Luke 2:43) while others are not speaking about sexual connotations given the context (such as Matt 17:18 or Luke 8:54).

Does the word even mean a "young homosexual lover"? I'm sure in some parts of ancient Greece it might have been written to refer to such a person, but the question is whether or not it could be understood here. Some comments from various concordances and lexicons regarding the word:

child, maiden, servant, young man. - Perhaps from paio; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy), a girl, and (genitive case) a child; specially, a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God) -- child, maid(-en), (man) servant, son, young man. [Strong's Exhaustive Concordance]

Definition - a child, boy, youth [NAS Exhaustive Concordance]

Definition: (a) a male child, boy, (b) a male slave, servant; thus: a servant of God, especially as a title of the Messiah, (c) a female child, girl. [biblos.com]

The Greek term here is παῖς (pais), often used of a slave who was regarded with some degree of affection, possibly a personal servant... [from the NET notes on Matthew 8:6]

As we can see, most basic Biblical sources point to it referring to a young man or "boy." John Gill and A.T. Robertson likewise say that the word παῖς is used here in reference simply to a youth, with no sexual connotations.

2) Does Luke 7:2 mean anything?

The author of the quoted article states that there is "implication" in Luke 7:2, as it says the Centurion "had much love for" his παῖς. However, this is just one translation - in fact, I couldn't find a translation that bore those exact words. The closest translation that comes to it is the KJV with "who was dear unto him."

The Greek word used in Luke 7:2 which the author translates as "have much love for" is actually ἔντιμος, which means "to regard or value highly." Many translations - such as the NASB, NIV, NRSV and ESV - translate the word in Luke 7:2 in such a manner. Various cases of the word are used across the New Testament, including 1 Peter 2:4 and 6, Luke 14:8, and Philippians 2:29. A quick examination of the context of all these passages will show that it does not refer to the kind of eros love which the article's author is trying to promote. When the passage says that the Centurion had much ἔντιμος for his servant, it meant that the Centurion had much respect and care for those who worked under him - not that the Centurion had any kind of sexual interest in him.

One notable factor about Luke 7:2 that those who make the παῖς argument seem to miss is that Luke has the Centurion refer to the boy as δοῦλος. He then uses παῖς in verse 7 in reference to the same person. What does this mean? That δοῦλος and παῖς are being used interchangeably (as some Greek words often are), and therefore the true context of παῖς is a young male servant...not a young homosexual concubine. 

All in all, there are no homosexual connotations in this passage. Anyone who argues so is either playing lexical games or reading too much into the text.

The Errors of the Westboro Cult

It was recently brought to my attention that the cult run by Fred Phelps, which goes under the misnomer "Westboro Baptist Church," apparently declares itself to be a Calvinistic church. For those who don't know, Phelps and his family (literally, most of the church are his family) are a group of people infamous for going to the funerals of soldiers killed in war - or even famous individuals who pass away - and hold up signs that say "God hates f--" (the censored word being the slur for a homosexual) among other things. In another corner of the interweb, someone asked the curious question: "Does God hate sinners? If you say yes how can you say that Westboro Baptist is wrong?" This was directed towards Calvinists, and I offered him a reply, which I will rewrite (with some cleanup) now.

Got hates sin, just as it is written that God's wrath is against all unrighteousness of men (Rom 1:18), and it is for our sins which we are all guilty. There has been no "righteous" person who has ever lived (save Christ), and there is no "righteous" person in existence (Rom 3:9-11).

Here are the errors that the Westboro people commit:

1) They hone in on one kind of sin - that is, homosexuality. They make it their pet peeve sin and, like the prohibitionists attacked alcoholism, launch their personal crusade against it. God's Law extends far beyond homosexual acts.

2) It is not that homosexual activity is not a sin (it is), but under the eyes of God and under God's perfect Law, you and I are just as guilty as a practicing homosexual. For example, Christ outlined that anyone who looks at a woman with lust is guilty of committing adultery (Matt 5:27-28), and I don't know any straight man alive who isn't guilty of that. Likewise, the apostle James stated that he who violates one commandment of God is guilty of violating them all (Jam 2:10).

3) In their presentation of their beliefs regarding God and sin, the Westboro cult leaves out one important factor: grace. You see, the difference between how a Calvinist like George Whitefield would present the gospel and how Fred Phelps & Co. present the gospel is that any knowledgeable Christian (Calvinist or otherwise) recognizes that you establish Law to glorify Grace. That is, even while we were enemies to God, we were reconciled to Him by His Son (Rom 5:10), and we were reconciled to Him by the blood of the cross (Col 1:19-20). None of this is presented by the Westboro cult. Instead, they harp on the sin of homosexuality and condemn everyone of it. Nowhere is Christ's glory preached, nowhere is Christ's love preached, nowhere is the great Triune work of the crucifixion and resurrection talked about. They are like the Pharisees in the sense that they're great at condemning everyone but short on explaining how to do it better.

4) Finally...they're just tactless. I don't recall, in all the combats Christ had with the Pharisees, of Christ going to the funeral of a Pharisee's son and picketing it with His disciples. When the centurion came to ask Jesus to heal his servant, Christ didn't say, "I hope your servant dies you dirty pagan sodomite! God hates you!" Going to funerals and showcasing your hate is not only disrespectful to the grieving families, but shows that you basically wear your beliefs on your sleeve. It is not a very Christian way to act.

The Westboro group are not Calvinists, nor are they Christians. They are simply an example of man's depraved nature masquerading as a religious entity.