Archive for March, 2010

From the National Review:

This week, the Obama administration announced it will create a new poverty-measurement system that will eventually displace the current poverty measure. This new measure, which has little or nothing to do with actual poverty, will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”</blockquote>

The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.

I guess that the Founders had it wrong. It isn’t about equality of opportunity; its about equality of condition.

These are dangerous games he is playing…

Read Full Post »

A letter from the governor of Idaho to business owners in Oregon and Washington inviting them to leave the rising taxocracies of Oregon and Washington.

Just last week when discussing some of the Washington Legislature’s new tax proposals with my boss, I said “You know, if I was the governor of Idaho, I’d make a pitch for Oregon’s and Washington’s businesses.”

Apparently, Butch Otter has one hell of a sense of hearing:


By Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter

It’s true that a rising tide lifts all boats. But how those boats are handled makes a big difference when the tide is out and the waters get rough.

State governments across the country are dealing with the continuing national recession in different ways. In Idaho, our focus is on stability. Predictable tax and regulatory policies are what our employers need in order to maintain their operations through this rough patch, and it’s what employers elsewhere are looking for when they consider expanding or relocating.

Other states, however, have chosen some interesting and in my view counterproductive approaches. Last month, for example, Oregon voters approved their legislature’s decision to raise taxes on the wealthy and on many businesses by $727 million. The immediate result was that my phone started ringing – and so did phones over at our Department of Commerce. It seems that word has spread about our Project 60 initiative, and that we are open for business, including theirs!

The businesses that have called are emotional about this subject, and they have every right to be. Rising costs – especially during a recession – could put some employers out of business, or at least prompt layoffs. More than 2,000 Oregonians joined a Facebook group to protest the tax increase and commiserate about the repercussions. No less an Oregon business icon than Nike’s Phil Knight calls it “Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law II.”

Legislators in the state of Washington are talking about even bigger tax increases to tackle a budget deficit that figures to be as big as Idaho’s entire State budget. Businesses in both states are like those in Idaho; they are facing the most challenging times in decades, and even incremental cost increases can mean the difference between surviving and closing up.

The problem in Oregon is that folks were convinced that state government was what needed to be shored up rather than the jobs- and revenue-producing private sector for which state government is supposed to work. As a result, they’re chasing some of their cash cows to the border. And I welcome those businesses with open arms.

We now are reaching out to hundreds of Oregon businesses, and will do the same with those in Washington if the legislature there follows Oregon’s lead. We aren’t offering many bells and whistles, but what we can offer is a business-friendly State government, a highly qualified and motivated work force, and communities where people understand that while government cannot be the solution to their problems it can and must be a champion for their own solutions.

Businesses small and large are the backbone of Idaho’s economy. They employ our citizens, who in turn can provide for their families. Businesses and individuals also pay reasonable taxes that enable State and local governments to provide such essential services as public schools and public safety. And make no mistake: Any business that doesn’t pass along its operating costs to consumers – including their tax bills – doesn’t stay in business for long.

Of course, Oregon businesses can choose to accept their higher tax burden, and many will. After all, I understand that the quality of life over there is pretty good. But they have nothing on Idaho in that regard.

For those Oregon businesses facing a decision about whether to lay off employees or close their doors entirely, I have a proposal: Move to Idaho. The Tax Foundation rates our corporate tax burden at 17th in the nation, compared to Oregon’s ranking of 31st. Our individual tax burden is lower, too. Those kinds of numbers can make a real difference to a bottom line.

For Oregonians reading this: Find the best Idaho community for your business by visiting us online at http://www.gemstateprospector.com. Or call our Department of Commerce toll free at 1-800-842-5858 for details about available land, buildings and incentives.

I’ll continue to share information wherever I can about Project 60 and our business-smart state. Find out what so many folks already know – Idaho is a great place to live, to work, and to create career-path jobs and opportunities.


Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter will issue his Project 60 Update monthly, providing information about ongoing job growth and business expansion throughout Idaho.

The Democrats in Olympia aren’t much different than the ones in D.C. Cutting government isn’t an option for them. They’d rather destroy the economy with taxes and class warfare.

Read Full Post »

The Red Hides the Blood Nicely, Doesn't It?

As many of you know, I have recently taken up the “hobby” of “dialogue” with some left-leaning bloggers. While punching myself in the face until I pass out might be a more productive use of my time, I do enjoy the exchanges, especially when the other side inadvertently slips and reveals what they really think. More often than not, however, I find many of the approaches they take to subjects based in false premises, which they will defend with their dying breaths because they are convinced that the outcome makes the means just.

One such example is the latest post from Hippie Prof, a midwest professor who is self-admittedly wrapped up in contradictions, yet stubbornly convinced that the left has the answers, despite ample proof to the contrary. His latest post is a leftist parable about two veterans, both single amputees, who have very different ideas about the welfare state, and yet, he would have us believe, the ‘conservative’ contradicts himself on the issue of handicapped parking spaces. The point of the story is that while conservatives believe that charity is the responsibility of the individual, there is simply too great a need for the individuals to meet. If you like smarmy condescension in your unrepentant political propaganda, then by all means, check it out. Otherwise, you can thank me later for sparing you the not so thinly veiled pro-Obamareidpelosicare piece.

The reason I chose to write about it at all is an assertion that has been floating around on the some of the left-leaning sites I frequent for a while now, handily encapsulated in this excerpt:

Lefty: Sometimes those of us who have more need to give some of what we have to those of us who have less. It is the right and moral thing to do….

Righty: Don’t talk to me about “right and moral” things! I give away plenty of my money to charity – but on a volunteer basis, and I donate my time too! It should be my choice to do that – it is not up to the government to do it for me!

Lefty: You may give to charity – but charity alone is never enough. The need always exceeds what people are willing to give voluntarily. Do you think that people would give enough to cover the need?

Lefty’s brand of hand-wringing tripe sounds familiar. Wait…it will come to me…YES!!!:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  -Karl Marx

Yes, our moralist sounds exactly like the author of millions of death warrants, one of Communism’s Founding Fathers, and an inspiration to power-mad, bloody-minded megalomaniacs everywhere. 

It should go without saying that a philosophy that has killed millions, and enslaved millions more being portrayed as “moral” gets my hackles up. 
From the Webster’s Encyclopeadic Dictionary of the English Language:

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6.virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7.of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8.resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
9.the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10.the embodiment or type of something.
11.morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

The idea that charity should be accomplished through government is about as wrong-headed as it could be.  One need only look to government’s stunningly successful track record.  Nearly forty years fighting a “War on Poverty” that hasn’t made any significant change in the percentage of people living in poverty in this country despite government taking billions of tax dollars from We The People and giving it to “the poor”, minus a not-insignificant-handling-fee, of course.  Then there is the much longer term success story that is Social Security, truly one of the greatest pyramid schemes in history, that is a scant few years from collapse, due to government’s inability to refrain from spending every dollar that comes through its hands, and the fact that it created a sense of entitlement in every generation that was forced to pay into it (unless you were born after 1970, in which case government doesn’t give a damn what your expectations might be.  You’ll pay much more than previous generations, and you had better plan on working longer just to keep a comparable amount of take home pay over your life time…oh, and you get nothing.)  How about Medicare?  Not only has this “entitlement” cost the American taxpayer BILLIONS in fraud and waste, but it actually limited senior citizens’ health care insurance options and treatment choices, because no private insurer would continue to carry them on their rolls when the government would do it for “free”.  Of course, just like anything else in a command economy, the government also dictated the prices it would pay.  Because the providers are free agents, many could, and did refuse Medicare patients because they didn’t see fit to reduce their bottom-line and deny their families the fruits of their labors, forcing patients to see providers who often have less skill, more patients, and fewer treatment options.  And now they want us to let them do it to everyone.  They demand it.

Because speech after speech after speech after speech after speech from the Left’s Silver-Tongued Messiah™ has failed to convince the American People that giving government more control over their lives is a good idea, and the endless lectures from the Great Condescender™ (same player, different hat) have failed, they have turned to the most despicable technique yet.  They are attempting to make it a moral imperative.

Let’s take it at face value:  It is right conduct for a government to take more and more from one group of people (let’s call them the haves) so that it can provide for the needs of another group (let’s call them the have nots).  Now when an individual or a group of individuals decide to help people out of a sense of compassion and donate their time or their money to help those less fortunate, it is called charity.  The individual or group exercises their freedom to decide who they are going to help, and to what degree.  That is only fitting.  It is their money and it is their time and frequently they make real strides towards independence a condition of the charity.

When government decides to help the less fortunate, it is called welfare.  It is given on criteria that the government decides, in the amount that government decides, to those whom the government chooses, for as long as it chooses.  It is done with our money, and it uses perverse incentives to break up the family structure and increase dependence on government.  And because of the empowerment of politicians that comes through this dependence, there is never any incentive for it to stop.  It can, and has increased spending over the years, further increasing the amount of taxes charged to pay for it, and the liability of the taxpayer to pay for what government borrows so it can avoid ending it.

Now there is a word for when someone takes something that is yours from you without your consent by intimidation or violence…


Robbery is : 

the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

“But BiW”, I can hear you say “It isn’t felonious when government does it.”

Just because the government does something doesn’t make it legal.  The government does illegal things quite frequently.  And while you can search high and low in the Constitution, you will not find “Providing for the needy” anywhere in it.  Yes, I know there are two references to Congress’ power to provide for the “general welfare”.  I can also read, and I have read the Federalist Papers.  Madison never would have agreed with the leftist contention that the “General Welfare” clause authorized Social Security, Medicare, and other programs.  Hamilton was a little freer in his interpretation, but he also envisioned a strong federal government, in opposition to many of the other Founders.  Having said that, I am convinced that he would be horrified, both at what is already in place, and at what government proposes, and even he too realized that there were limits, and it was within the purview of the people themselves to determine what those limits are:

“But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. “ –Hamilton, The Federalist #33

We all have needs.  But when the government is empowered to determine the extent of the needs of some, and to take from others without limit or reservation to in order to “meet” those needs, it has gone too far.  When “the needy” represent a class dependent upon government rather than on itself, and government provides for this class and actively seeks to increase the size and scope of dependency on the government to the detriment of the majority of its people, it not only squanders its legitimacy, by dutifully ignoring the consent of the governed, it purposely vicitmizes one class of citizen for the supposed benefit of another, voiding the concept of equality under the law.  By formulating such “charity” and enforcing participation through the use all mechanisms available to it, government robs some citizens and gives some of what it takes to others.  There is nothing “moral” about that.  In  fact, if we were talking about anyone else doing it, we would also be talking about arrest and prosecution for it.

Government exists to protect the property of its citizens.  If this were not true, we would not have the body of contract law that we do; there would be no point.  Contracts, by their very nature, presume the exchange of something of value to the parties, for them to benefit by.  If this were not so, then there would be no incentive to enter into a contract.  Welfare as we know it has no general benefit.  It does not increase the security of all.  It does not make the nation stronger.  It does not preserve society.  It simply empowers those in government who would give it to some at a cost to others, while increasing the size and power of government.  This not a lawful or proper aim of government, and while it may help those who direct it to feel moral about their actions, there is nothing noble or right about limiting the achievement of those it takes from, or making a judgement that they should share through government’s auspices.  In addition, it does nothing to empower or uplift the recipient; indeed, the only one empowered in the whole transaction is government.

Still, I suppose that I should be happy for the progress that they are making.  Now they are trying to convince me that this is a moral imperative based on their morals, and not mine.  Of course, it helps to have some ready answers when a non-Christian tries to tell you that Christ would be in favor of the Health Care Take Over™.

Read Full Post »

A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy…. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.

That Sam Adams. Always such a kidder.

Overheard in a bar, in the not-to-distant future, somewhere on Main Street…

Do you have enough leftover from your “assistance” check to buy another? What’s that? You have to get up early because your number got picked to go to the clinic and wait to see if they can actually see you? Wow. Some guys get all the luck! Here, take my bus token. I’d rather walk anyway. Sometimes I long for the good old days before $8.00 a gallon gasoline, but I couldn’t afford the personal property taxes on a car now, anyway. Did I tell you I got an extra hour to run my lamp this week? Problem is I have nothing to read, so me and the Mrs. will probably just sit around and stare at each other. I wish I got that extra hour in the winter. Our apartment gets so cold, and that 13 watt florescent bulb would make it so much warmer. Did I tell you that the supermarket actually got some lettuce last week? And half of it was unwilted, too. Yeah, I know what you mean. I miss a lot of stuff we used to be able to get. Strawberries? Nahhhhh. I can’t even remember what they taste like, but do you remember those apples we used to get? They were crunchy, and juicy, and just the right balance of tart and sweet. Yeah…I know what you mean. What’s that? You used your toothpaste ration for the month? You didn’t hear it from me, but if you go see Nick, that guy at the garage on the corner…he’s got some extra toothpaste he’ll trade for. Should only cost you four rolls of toilet paper.

Read Full Post »

One of the things that tends to get under my skin is non-Christians who, armed with an incomplete knowledge of Christianity and a very limited understanding of what is in the Bible, endeavor to play “Gotcha!” with Christians.  It doesn’t bother me out of any lack of faith in my, well, uh, faith.  Indeed, that would make about as much sense as Galileo sitting before the church tribunal, listening patiently to the charges, and then saying “You know what?  You’re absolutely right.  That whole “the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun” thing?  That’s just foolish. Of course I’ll accept the views of someone who had a poor understanding of the subject based incomplete knowledge.” 

No, the reason that it bothers me is it is like watching someone who may otherwise be capable of making a reasoned argument on any other subject, complete with rudimentary command of the subject material decide to  instead put on a clown suit, douse themselves with gasoline, and light a match. Even if I didn’t have concern for their soul, it would be painful to watch. 

One such argument that crops up from time to time with such people is that Christians “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible they are going to obey.  Usually, this argument is being made by someone who thinks themselves “enlightened” in their opposition to the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality.  Because this was first frowned upon in Genesis, then strongly condemned in Leviticus, these critics often stop their search for understanding there, and consider themselves clever for saying something like “Why don’t you go see a priest and make a blood sacrifice for your sins?”  or

You know all you good Christians who have eaten shrimp or lobster are going to hell.

You know… cause it’s the word of God an all.

Just saying…

The Bible is very black and white about it, so you know, sorry about that. In Leviticus it says, “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

I recommend SPF 100.

Which would be very compelling… if there were no New Testament.  See, the problem is that accusers such as the one above only read until they think they can say “Oh boy, I’m gonna expose them as hypocrites now!”, and then when we can give an explanation based in New Testament scripture explaining why we can go down to Harbor Lights, order the shrimp scampi without a scintila of guilt, and still say that “Homosexuality is wrong.”, they have to scramble and make increasingly silly arguments why Christianity is silly/unbelievable/superstitious/wrong.  After a while, they run out of places to move the goal posts to.

Because this particular commenter managed to walk out all of the predictable arguments in a single comment thread, I’ll address the shellfish thing first.

While the eating of shellfish was indeed condemned by the ceremonial law in the Old Testament, this was not true under the New Testament, because Jesus had come and fulfilled the law.

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.  Matthew 5:17-18  (All citations in the New King James Version)

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail.  Luke 16:17

So what does it mean when we say that he fulfilled the law?  Well, much of the symbology or typology in the law existed because we did not have a savior to atone for our sins.  This is why there were a whole list of offerings, many involving blood.  When Christ came, he fulfilled the law by sacrificing himself and letting his blood pay for our sins.  As a result, many of the ceremonies, observances, and dietary restrictions were no longer necessary, because Christ was here, and we did not have to act in a manner that reflected what he would do in fulfilling the law.  This does not mean that the law itself was abolished, the verses above make that abundantly clear.  Sin remained sin, but other the things that were substitutes for what Christ gave us were no longer necessary.  There are several places in the New Testament that make it clear that the dietary restrictions no longer applied:

Mark 7:14-19

14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 

Acts 10:9-15

9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

Romans 14:17

17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 8:8

8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

Colossians 2:16-17

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Hebrews 9:9-10

9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

But our friend wasn’t done.

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

This is, of course, a gross simplification. The actual text is referring to Jews who started to worship other Gods, not simply to start killing members of other faiths, and was initially God keeping his Chosen People separate and holy.  The full text is:

2 “If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the LORD your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the LORD your God, in transgressing His covenant, 3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, 4 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. 6 Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

While the implication the commenter means to make is that Christians are commanded to kill people of other religions, he misses the mark.  First, because the commandment was to Jews, and second because in the New Testament, a Jew was chosen to preach to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  I’m speaking of Saul of Tarsus, who wrote many of the Epistles as Paul:

Acts 9:15-16

15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Romans 11:13

13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

Romans 15:16

16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 2:1-7

 1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

2 Timothy 1:11

11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Now, considering that Gentiles were anyone who was not a Jew, one can only conclude that something had changed between Deuteronomy and the New Testament, and it had.  Christ came, and in so doing, he brought salvation to ALL mankind.  This is why God called a Jew to preach the Gospel to not just Jews, and not just Gentiles, but both.

But our freind had one more move of the goalposts to make.

When any rational person gets into a debate about the Christian Right’s hatred of gays or judging people unlike themselves, it is quite easy to point out some verse in the Bible that directly contradicts their argument. They thus becomes flustered and can’t come up with some winning verse and retreat to clutching their Bible and muttering, “you just can’t read it right because you’re not a christian.”

I find it all so absurd.

Where to start?   So far, I’ve managed to address these “contradictions” pretty well, but maybe these last two might be winning arguments, or at least maybe they might be if they did not contain some mischaracterizations to start with.  To start with, any Christian who is reading their Bible carefully does not “hate gays”.  This is not to say that the Bible is ok with Homosexuality.  It isn’t, and it is fairly clear about this in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Genesis 19

1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”
And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”
3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

Leviticus 18:22

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Galatians 5:19-21

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[a] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[b] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:3-5

 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know,[a] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

Jude 7

7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

That should leave little doubt about what the Bible says about the practice of homosexuality.  I can hear our friend saying “Gotcha! Why wasn’t this made permissible with Jesus’ coming?”  Put simply, because it is the law, and not a ceremony, nor a reflection of what Christ was to be for mankind.  “But what about Christ’s commandment to love one another?”  My response is what of it?  Homosexuality was prohibited by the law because it was a sin.  The coming of Christ did not change sin into something else, but he did pay the price for our sins.  However, accepting that salvation does not free us up to continue sinning. 

John 8:1-11

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”

That said, the Bible is equally clear about how we are to view those in bondage to that sin:

Jude 22-23

22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;[a] 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,[b] hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Love the sinner…as Christ himself does, but hate the sin.

Which brings us to the judgement argument.

Likely, our friend was thinking of Matthew 7:1-5:

1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Certainly sounds condemning of those hypocritical Christians, does it not?  How about if we add the last verse of that chapter?

Matthew 7:1-6

1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Sure sounds like he is commanding us to make some sort of judgement, does it not?  And that is the point.  Hypocritical and self-righteous judgements?  No.  Judgements made with discernment.  This is further revealed in Luke 6:37-42:

37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
39 And He spoke a parable to them: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch? 40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher. 41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

And finally in John 7:24:

24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

I have no illusion that gathering this answer to the various charges will somehow silence the critics.  Bad arguments have a way of continually cropping up, and critics of Christianity will continue to find a way to be critical.  That is the price of free will.  Some will choose to remain unconvinced, and sometimes, they will go to great lengths to remain unconvinced.  For some of these, there will always be a “But what about…” or some perceived escape clause.  I didn’t write this to change their minds.  I wrote it to show the shallowness of their arguments, and to help others with their faith, that they might have an answer when asked, and that they have a testimony that is that much stronger when they are sharing the word with non-believers.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts