Homosexuality and Transgender 3

Let me apologize in advance for what's about to happen. I already speak very rapidly, and I am going to have to speak even more rapidly. I know that you people think I have an accent, even though I don't. You do, but I do not, and I realize that my accent can be a little bit difficult to understand. However, there is a great deal of information that we have to get through this morning, and so I am going to press on and try to get through this. I'm going to try to get through anyway. I don't even want to tell you how long I usually take to get through the information that we're going to share today, but I will just trust you to listen faster than other groups are able to listen. Okay, this is a very important issue. We're talking about, this issue of home sexuality, and particularly the issue of same sex marriage. They this movement is a global one, but the sort of the epicenter of the political front of this movement is in the United States, and I'll explain that to you. There's a magazine, the largest homosexual magazine in the world. Really, it's called The Advocate. It's an American magazine. Uh and several years ago they had a a and I wish I could show this to you, a cover story, and the cover is black. I'm gonna add that their recording here. I'm gonna ask, if you're not with these guys, that you not bring recording devices. Okay, And you can get the recording from from these guys, but out of respect for them, I'm going to ask that you not bring other recording devices, okay. And it was just a black cover with the name the Advocate in gold and the title was gay is the New Black, and the subtitle the Last Great Civil Rights Struggle, the last Great civil rights Struggle. So the idea of equating homosexuality and same sex marriage with blackness, it may not make a whole lot of sense here, but in the United States it makes a lot of sense. And I want to explain to you why it makes so much sense and why that makes it portable, especially somewhere like South Africa where there's been apartheid. Listen to this from Mark Stein. In the old days, there was sodomy an act. It used to be called sodomy in the late nineteenth century. The word homosexuality was coined a condition a generation ago. The accepted term became gay an identity. Each formula raises the stakes one can object to and even criminalize and act. One is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition. But once it's a fully fledged twenty four to seven identity, like being hispanic, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked as a bigot. Do you see this? Once it becomes an identity, all of a sudden, your attitude toward it has to change the transformation of a crime against nature to what sodomy means, a crime unnatural crime against nature into a co equal civil identity within little more than the span of one human lifetime. Is one of the most remarkable victories ever achieved by any minority group in the Western world. A minority that didn't even exist in a formal sense a century ago has managed to overwhelm and overhaul a universal societ idol institution thousands of years old. It happened quickly, But why blackness? Listen to this from the author of that article in The Advocate. He says, we have no natural allies therefore, and therefore cannot rely on the assistance of any group. We have only tactical allies. People who do not want barbarous things done to us because they fear the same thing may someday be done to them. Two authors by the name of Russell Kirk and Hunter Mason. You need to know these names. I'll talk more about them momentarily, but they write this again talking about why blackness. To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled moral choice and sin, and give the religious in transigence a stick to beat us with straits. Must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual. Wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it, and since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds one in ten as to who turns out gay and who's straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself. By the way, that number one in ten they admit is not a real number. It's a fictitious number. It's completely made up. The homosexual population is somewhere between one and three percent, not ten percent. Somewhere between one and three. But in their book they say that this number is actually a mantra. If you repeat it over and over again enough times, people begin to believe it. One in ten, one in ten, one in ten, And so you have people walking around thinking ten percent of the population is homosexual. I would argue, by the way, and we'll get into this later, okay, even to make that statement, and again I'll explain this later on, I talk about people who practice homosexuality and not people who are homosexual. There is no evidence that people are homosexual none. And if you argue that there is, here's my question, how do you prove it? A person says they're homosexual, how do you prove it? Well, would they have sex with people of the same sex? Really, does that make you homosexual? Or is that just a practice? So we're arguing that there are people who just are homosexual and that they will never be anything else, when the fact of the matter is, according to one Corinthians, chapter six, we have two thousand year old biblical evidence that people stop practicing homo sexuality, which means, by definition, it's not something they are, it's something that they do. But you and I have already been conditioned to talk about homosexuality like it's something people are. We've been co opted already. Listen to this from John McKellar. He's a homosexual, he's a founder of a group called Hope Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism. Listen to what he says. The modern change and opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. A masterful public relations campaign orchestrated by the gay pride extremists has achieved a transformation in public in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo Christian ethic upon which our civilization is based. It's not based in science. There is no science to support this, none at all. Though hailed as progress, it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by counterculture restatement of gnostic moral relativism. Understand this. The homosexual movement is a religious movement, and it's not new. It's not new. It's a religious movement that has its roots in Greco Roman paganism. It is a form of paganism. It is a religion. Okay, it is a religion. So I talked about these two authors, Russell Kirk and Hunter Matson. They published a book in nineteen eighty nine. The title of it is After the Ball, the subtitle How America Will Overcome its fear and hatred of Gays in the decade of the nineties. It was published in nineteen eighty nine. When you read it, it reads like a history book. If I was to give you my copy of this book and you were to start reading it, if you weren't careful and nobody, if nobody told you, you know, you take out the cover and you just start reading, what you would think is, oh, this is somebody who is tracing the way the homosexual movement developed. No, this was a strategy they put forth in nineteen eighty nine. There was a meeting in the US of leading homosexual advocates in nineteen eighty eight in order to get together and strategize. Kirk and Mason had written an article. Again, these two professors at Harvard University, one in psychology and one in marketing. They had written this article called After the Ball, and we're coming out with this book. And so they got together with all of the leading homosexual advocates and activists in order to put together this strategy. What is the strategy? Well, first of all, what is it based on? Listen to what they write, and this is in nineteen eighty nine. AIDS, though a loose canon, is a canon. Indeed, as cynical as it seems, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority, legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. This, therefore, is the question and the challenge. How can we surmount our insurmountable opportunity? How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it? How can we use the AIDS crisis to change the way people think about us? The method, again, this is nineteen eighty nine. These two Harvard professors. What do they write? The campaign we outline and after the ball, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long established principles of psychology and advertising. They actually have sample adverts in the book. But what is propaganda? They define propaganda in their book. Remember they say this is a properanda campaign. Right, So what's propaganda? Three characteristics distinguish propaganda from other modes of communication and contribute to its sinister reputation. Number one, it relies on emotional manipulation. Number two, it uses lies, and number three it is subjective and one sided. These are the authors who said they're using a propaganda campaign, and here's how they define propaganda. Emotional manipulation, lies, and subjective and one sided. They make no apologies about this. Tell our side of the story as movingly as possible. In the battle for hearts and minds. Effective propaganda knows enough to put its best foot forward. This is what our own media campaign must do. It's a three step process, this media campaign of theirs, desensitizing, jamming, and conversion. By the way, these are the three steps in brainwashing. What are these things? First? Desensitizing to desensitize straits to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay related advertising presented in the least defensive fashion possible. If straits can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet. Television programs got to have a homosexual character in every show, and the homosexual character has to be the wittiest, the funniest, the most well dressed, right, always, always, always, just put it out there, over and over and over again. Use movies, television shows, commercials, outed actors, and athletes. So when a famous person comes out as being homosexual, I mean, it becomes huge. In the United States, it was interesting when Margaret Thatcher died, President Obama could couldn't find the time to go to her funeral. However, when the famous athlete NBA star former NBA star came out, the President met with him personally in order to encourage him because this has always been one of mister Obama's chief goals as the President of the United States, to use his position to advance this particular issue. So that becomes very important. Why is that important? Why Why are the actors and the athletes and all these people. Why is that very important? Well, because the idea in people's mind for so long has been, you know that homosexuality is about being weak, especially for men, about being weak, about being effeminate, you're not really a man. So when you have someone who is a big, strong athlete who says, well, no, actually I'm a homosexual. Well you want to point to that, and I'll explain why in a moment. The second issue First, desensitized. In desensitizing, we just get you used to seeing it. We get you used to hearing it where it doesn't bother you anymore. You get to the point where your blood no longer boils when you see it. Second, jamming they right accuse religious people gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that justify religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards. The idea of jamming is, you have a perception, you have morality that you stand on, but we want to present you a picture. We want to present you negative images. For example, expose people to images of the Nazis and the KKK and their white hoods and all this sort of stuff. When you talk about people who are anti homosexual right, when you talk about religious people who are against homosexuality, equate them with these people. So now, all of a sudden, the jamming happens when you hold to a position, but the image has been placed in your head of something that you don't want to be identified with. This is why We're always apologizing pastors pre sermons on homosexuality, and it's always, now, you know, we love homosexuals, we want to embrace homosexuals. You know, we don't I don't. You know, these are human beings and we wanted to You never start a sermon like that when you talk about adultery. Why jamming. We've been jammed portray anti gay institutions as antiquated, backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings in psychology. So basically, there are pastors out there who believe that psychology has already proven that people are born gay. The Levey brain study, the Bailey and Pillar twin study, Hammer's X chromosome study, Savax pheromone study. You know, all of these studies. By the way, none of these studies, not one of them, not one of them, has demonstrated a biological component to homosexuality, not one, not one. Now you hear them reported on the BBC, and it's you know, scientists and the breakthrough study and da da dah. They never tell you that the study didn't prove what it was set out to prove. But it hasn't. So for example, if there was a biological component. What we could do is we could actually discover posthumously who was homosexual and who wasn't. Right, if there's a biological component, if there's a gene, if there's something in the brain, if there's something in our chemistry, then a person dies, you do a post mortem, you discover that they had so wow homosex so and so was homosexual. But you can't do that because there is no biological component that has been discovered, not one, by the way, it wouldn't make a difference if it was. Here's what's interesting. People like Kirk and Matson, they don't necessarily want there to be this biological discovery. But let me ask you this, what if we find a violent gene. What if we find a gene that makes someone violent. If I have that gene and I beat my wife, do we now find a way to embrace me as a wife beater because I have this gene hm a promiscuity gene. If we find a promiscuity gene, is it now okay that the man sleeps around with everything moving net will right? No? No, really, I'm not immoral. I have the promiscuity gene. Do you see the third step in this process is converting. This doesn't mean making people homosexuals. Both desensitization and jamming, though extremely useful, our mere preludes to our highest, though necessarily long range goal, which is conversion. It isn't enough that anti gay bigots should become confused about us or even indifferent to us. We are safest in the long run if we can actually make them like us or One of the things that they attack hard in the book is the whole love the sin or hate the sin mentality. That is unacceptable, unacceptable because you're still calling it sin, So that must be obliterated, it must be wiped out. Please don't confuse conversion with political subversion. By conversion, we actually mean something more profoundly threatening to the American way of life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media and the schools. And this is exactly what has happened. Exactly what has happened. You have Christian parents whose children come home from school calling them bigots because of the position that they hold on homosexuality. It's happening here too. It's happening here too, because they've been desensitized, jammed, and converted, and so have many of us. Then you come to coercion. Eventually, this is where you get in the United States. Same sex marriage has been legalized in many other places in Europe, and same sex marriage has been legalized eventually. Eventually this becomes coercive. If the argument is that being homosexual is innate, if the argument is that it is the equivalent of somebody's ethnicity, it's like being black or whatever, then you cannot also say that it is acceptable to discriminate against people who happen to be homosexual. It isn't even acceptable to say that churches can have the right to do this, because that would be no more allowable than discriminating against people who have some sort of physical handicap. So, eventually, the nine hundred pound gorilla is coming for the church. What does that look like? Listen to this. This is in nineteen eighty seven in The Advocate, expressing himself with great vigor and perhaps an extremist tone even for gay activists. Act Up Leader, this is one of the leading homosexual organizations Stephen Warren intoned an ominous sounding alarm for religious Jews and Christians in September nineteen eighty seven. The article is called Warning to the Homophobes. Listen to this. Listen to this, okay, and everyone who thinks that the problem is that we haven't been gentle enough, or kind enough, or open enough, or whatever else enough, there is never going to be enough, listen to this. Henceforth, homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an honorable estate. You can either let us marry people of the same sex, or, better yet, abolish marriage altogether. Three you will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements. You will also instruct your people and homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly, display affection, and enjoy each other sexually without embarrassment or guilt. Four. If any older people in your midst object, you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation. Five. You will also make certain that laws are passed forbidding discriminate against homosexuals, and heavy punishments are assessed. Six And finally, we will, in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your scriptures and rewrite others, eliminating preferential treatment for marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages describing biblical lovers such as Ruth and Boaz, or Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Warning, if all of these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory. We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender. Now that's what's coming. Let me move ahead, actually to an entirely different what's normally an entirely different presentation? What time do we out of here? Eleven? Okay, So here's the question. Why address this issue? Why address the issue of homosexuality? The Creation account gives us a biblical, theological, philosophical, and moral framework for human sexuality and so essentially we have to address this issue. But listen to this from Matt Slick. We need to write about homosexuality because it is addressed in the Bible. It is a moral issue, and it affects society. Therefore, it also affects religious and social institutions. As the influence of homosexuality increases, it will continue to invade our churches, our home, our families, and affect change around us. Therefore, we need to have rational and biblical defenses for the Christian position as well as an examination of the problems that homosexuality brings. You cannot avoid this. You cannot be neutral on this. You cannot sit on the sideline on this issue. Neutrality is not an option. Understand, folks. This movement is advancing and it is shaping itself around an ideology that says, it is not enough for you to keep your mouth closed. You must be an advocate. You must be an advocate. It is not enough to be a church that is neutral. You must be a church that offers homosexual ceremonies. Okay, ah, maybe in the West, you know, but not here, not here in Africa, because already here in Africa, my president is flexing his muscles. How is he doing that by encouraging certain organizations that loan money to African countries to not loan that money or to demand repayment of those loans unless those African countries change their laws on homosexuality. This is what Barack Hussein Obama is doing, and especially ramping it up in his last days. So don't think that, you know, being tucked away here in this part of the world, far away from the West and its influence, is somehow going to save you, because it's not. It's not. It's here, it's now, and you can't hide from it. Opposition from within here is where we really need to sort of be girded up and prepared with the opposition that comes from within. We expect the opposition from outside. But here's what's happening, or what has happened through this process of desensitizing and jamming and conversion. The majority of people in the world now have an attitude toward homosexuality that is a neutral or positive one. The majority of people in the world today are not viewing homosexuality as some heinous moral crime. Okay, that's just not the case. And even the people who do view that feel guilty about it and try to hold it close to the vest because they realize that throughout most of the world, in the developed world where people are advanced, that such ideas are are are ancient and barbaric. So because of this, there's not opposition from within. There has had to be a response. Christians have had to find a way to have their cake and eat it too, and so they have. And what are the arguments that people use? And these are the arguments that are now being used against us. Okay, these are the most common arguments being used against us. It's interesting. It's not enough that there is this flood from outside. Because you can't just change people's ideas. You can't just see the next generation of young Christians change their ideas. The church must be crushed or transformed. And in order for that transformation to take place, there's some things that you have to deal with. Number one, the argument that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. Oh, this is so common. Jesus never addressed homosexuality, and so the argument kind of goes something like this. You know you're a Christian, you're a follower of Christ. Jesus never once addressed homosexuality, So how can you say that you're a follower of Christ. Christ didn't think that it was important enough to even mention, and you're making a big deal about. Secondly, Paul didn't understand loving same sex relationships. He didn't understand he did not understand sexual orientation as such, and therefore what he was arguing against was not sexual orientation. Thirdly, love is the overarching ethic of the New Testament. Therefore, if people are finding loving same sex relationships, then they are actually expressing the highest of New Testament virtues. And finally, why do you eat shellfish? Why do you eat shellfish? Why do you cut the edges of your beard? Why do you wear two types of material in your clothing? Hm? Why is it that there are some laws in Leviticus that you don't pay attention to anymore? But that one little place over there right about? You know, laying with a man is with a woman. You just jump on that with both feet. Huh huh. See these are the arguments. Now most Christians, even a large number of Christian ministers, when faced with these arguments, that their response is basically, well you it just I just you know, because the Bible is just we won't believe in that. That's wrong. It's just wrong. It's just wrong. Well, you gotta do better than that, guys. All right, so look at the first one. Jesus never addressed homosexuality. Raise your hand if you've heard this one, raise your hand, if you've been faced with this one. Let me see him, Let me see him, Let me see him, let me see him. Okay, that's all. That's the only one, is all, okay it It is a very popular argument. Right, you're a Christian, you're a follower of Christ. It's interesting that you know here you are, as a follower of Christ, making a big deal about something that Jesus never mentioned one time. M here's the problem. Jesus did address homosexuality. That's problem number one. He did. Yeah, I mean he never said the words, so he did. It's like people who say the word trinity is not in the Bible. Nope, but the concept is all over right, Jesus did address homosexuality. He addressed homosexuality rather clearly in Matthew five and in Matthew nineteen. We'll get to that. Here's the other problem, folks, Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Therefore it doesn't matter do you think that the father and the Son and the spirit disagree on anything? Huh? So if you believe in the triune God, this argument is a moot point. Well, Jesus never addressed in a homosexual Yeah, he's a member. He's a member of the Godhead. Thirdly, that means that Jesus was there in Sodom, and it means he's actually the author of living Amen somebody, okay. And the other thing is the Bible is a unit. The Bible is a unit. The Bible is one story, not many. There's only one story in the Bible. What Genesis teaches about marriage Genesis two, twenty four and twenty five. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they should become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Now notice what we find here. I just want to point out a couple of words man, father, mother, wife, man wife, and then one flesh. The one flesh union between a man and a woman is about a spiritual and an emotional union, absolutely, but it is also about a physical union. And human anatomy makes it very clear what that one flesh union is all about. You cannot have a one flesh union with two men or with two women. Technically speaking, two women can't have sex. Technically speaking, what two men can do together cannot be called sex, because by definition, this is the act between a man and a woman, as created by God, who are consummating the union that God ordained, this union that bears the fruit of children, this fruit that cannot be borne in a same sex union. It's not possible. It is categorically impossible. Notice I said categorically impossible, because the people wily get all sophisticated. And he said, well, well, well wait a minute. When you say you know, because they can't have children, well what about to old people. To old people can't have children either. Yes, but they still remain categorically the two halves of humanity that unite in order to bring children, which means that categorically they still reflect what human sexuality is all about. So categorically they still belong together, even if their past child bearing years. Categorically to men, not so, to women, not so. Jesus echoes this teaching Matthew nineteen three through six. Pharisees came up to him 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 man should leave his father and his mother, hold fast to his wife, and the two should become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Jesus affirms number one a literal accounting of Genesis. He affirms number two a literal atom and a literal eve. He affirms number three the purpose of marriage being for a man and a woman. He affirms number four the sexual union of man and woman, And he affirms number five that human beings do not have the right, do not have the authority to make any changes to what God did in Genesis. Jesus addressed homosexuality. Genesis also addresses the purposes of marriage. Three main purposes, procreation, illustration, and sanctification. These are the three main purposes of marriage. That we would be fruitful and multiply, that we would procreate. It's a picture of the relationship between Christ and his church. It's also another illustration. It's a triune illustration of a Triune God. Interestingly, you know, you read the Bible, and in the beginning of it you find a pattern that's repeated over and over and over again. Let there be, then there was, it was good. Let there be, then there was. It was good. Let there be, then there was it was good. Let there be, then there was, it was good. Let there be, then there was, it was very good. Right, there's the pattern in chapter one. In chapter two, all of a sudden, in verse eighteen, you find it is not good for the man to be alone. This is the first time in the Bible that something is not good, and it's before the fall, which means that it's not immoral or sinful. Right, it's not immoral or sinful, but it's not good. How can be not good if it's not immoral and it's not sinful. Let us make man in our image the Triune God, the God who has existed eternally as one god in three persons, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son eternally begotten of the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Triune God makes man in his image, and he says that something is not good, And so all of a sudden, the man falls asleep, and from his side is created the woman, who proceeds from the man, and then from their union preceedes children. Then you have a triune image of a triune God. Well, does just mean that until we get married and have children, we're not part of that image? Nope, because every human being is born from that union. Therefore, every birth is confirmation of that union. So you need not be married in order for you to already have been part of that picture. So the illustration and then sanctification, sanctification. There is this picture of the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, which is a sanctifying picture. We have these desires with which we are created, and they are fulfilled and brought to fruition within the context and confines of marriage. So what's wrong with homosexuality? Number one? It violates the created order. How So, first it denounces procreation categorically. Secondly, it blasphemes the illustration. You have Christ turned on himself, you have the Church turned on herself. And then thirdly, it denies the need for sanctification by calling evil good and good evil. Second line of argumentation, Paul didn't understand homosexuality. Paul did not understand sexual orientation. Now we laugh at this, but listen to me. This is the most popular line of argumentation today. It has the greatest traction within the Christian community, and it is absolutely flooding, flooding young Christians all over the world. There's a book by an author called Matthew Vines, It's God and the Gay Christian, and in it he is making this argument. And so he looks, for example, at Romans one, twenty six and twenty seven. For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions for their women, exchange natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the do penalty for their error. Sounds straightforward, right, Not according to Matthew Vines. Listen to what Vines wright. My core argument in this book is not simply that some Bible passages have been misinterpreted and others have been given undue weight. My larger argument is this, Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed monogamous same sex relationships. This guy presents himself not only as a conservative errentist, but as a reformed exegete. He further explains his argument and by the way, this is where he exposes himself and again young Christians with an unsophisticated view of scripture and this issue are just completely taken in by this. He argues, six passages in the Bible Genesis nineteen five, eighteen twenty two, Leviticus twenty thirteen, Romans one twenty six, twenty seven, First Corinthians six' nine and one Timothy one ten have stood in the way of countless gay people who long for acceptance from their Christian parents, friends, and churches. Do you see the problem with this six passages? That's it. It's all six passages. Oh, what a naive view of scripture. Your understanding of human sexuality has to encompass far more than these six passages, does it not? Your understanding of sin and the sin of homosexuality had better encompass far more than these six passages. But Matthew vines right, on the one hand, I'm conservative, I'm an errentist. I believe the Bible, I believe the Bible needs to be interpreted properly. I believe in proper hermeneutics. I'm reformed in my approach to scripture. And so we're gonna take these six passages, and we're gonna look at these six passages and go ooh, are wait, You're gonna answer the question of home homesexuality with with just those six passages, because because when I go to Genesis I don't want to just go to Genesis nineteen. I don't want you to talk about Solomon Gomora. I want to Genesis one, Genesis two. Hmm. Come on, now, take me to Genesis one, Jesus two. Let's go there. No, he didn't want to go to Genesis one. In jenis do? He wants to go to these six passages. So first you just sort of isolate these passages. And then once you've isolated these passages, there's a final step. And listen, here's his final step. In ancient Greece, the most common form of same sex behavior was something modern societies would never accept, a sexual relationship between a man and an adolescent boy called pederasty. As the book Greek Homosexuality by kJ Dover explains, pederastic relationships were a rite of passage for many Greek males, boys took the role of the passive beloved from around the age of twelve to seventeen, and they became active lovers as adults. So basically, here's Vine's argument. Vine says, what Paul is writing about is this practice of men who do not have a homosexual orientation engaging in the practice. So they would have wives and identify them they're heterosexuals, and they have wives, but they have these practices where they abuse young boys. That's what Paul is talking about, not people who have an orientation toward homosexuality, not people who have the gay gene, the gay you see, not people who actually are okay, all what's saying is how dare you people who are not really gay try to act like you are. It's a very sophisticated argument, and he's hoping, for example, that people don't realize that Paul would have absolutely understood what he's talking about. He's hoping that people don't realize that he's selective in the ancient documents that he chooses. He's hoping that people don't see this theological sleight of hand. So here's what you do here. I am I am a conservative evangelical. I'm reformed. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I hold scripture in high regard. We have to interpret scripture rightly. Wow, and I support loving monogamous homosexual relationship. Why you can't do that? Of course you can if you just take those six passages of Scripture and realize that there is a particular practice in mind, and that what we now know about sexual orientation these people would not have understood at all. Now, all of a sudden, you've got people all over the world who are going, Wow, thank God for Matthew Vines. We've been in the dark for so long. And he pulls all he pulls all the stops out he goes. You know, people use the Bible to support slavery. You know, people use the Bible to support apartheid. You know, people use the Bible and to say that the Earth was the center of the universe and not the Sun. So there's a long history of people using the Bible and being absolutely wrong. So this is really not that far fetched. This is just another instance of new scientific information being brought to bear and helping us interpret the Bible rightly. Except he has zero scientific information. In fact, he doesn't even bother to try to present any How do we respond to this? First, the idea of orientation is imposed on the text. Secondly, the idea of orientation is purely subjective. Vines says, this is his orientation. How can he prove it? How can anyone prove it? You can't. Thirdly, the author never proves his premise, doesn't even bother to try. He simply begs the question. Fourth, there is no evidence to support the orientation argument. None. Five. Even if there was, it wouldn't matter, because there are people who are oriented toward many things. Amen. In fact, I would argue all sin is an orientation problem. Amen. Since the fall, we've been oriented the wrong way on just about everything. Okay. Next, he's ignoring this idea of the purpose of marriage. He's ignoring this idea of the purpose of marriage. Okay. Finally, once we open this door, it's all over. It's all over. Because if there is the homosexual orientation, and by the way, this purely subjective, how do we know that there's this homosexual orientation? Well, because there are all these people over here, and they all have the same testimony, and their testimony is I didn't choose this I wouldn't choose this, And their testimony is I've known this since I was small. Well well, okay, well, but you also have people who are arguing for an orientation toward children. The pedophile argues that this is his orientation. He has always felt this way. By the way, there's more evidence for the pedophiles argument than there is for the sodomites argument, scientifically speaking, much more evidence for the pedophile's argument as far as biology is concerned. But again, does it matter. Are we now going to throw up our hands and say, oh, well, there you go. If you're oriented that way, find you a little child and have at it. Do you see the problem here? The man who beats his wife, who's oriented toward violence. I mean, I bet we could find a whole host of men who would stand up and say, no, no, really, I've always known that I was oriented toward violence, and really early on violence toward girls. Do you see the other argument, the argument that love is basically the central ethic of Christianity, and therefore if you have people in a loving, monogamous relationship, this is part of what Vines is arguing as well, then you have the expression, the highest expression of Christian morality, and so he would he would be from the kind of the kind of Beatles philosophy, the Beatles theology. All you need is love? Right me, I'm more the Tina Turner school of theology. Was love got to do with it? Okay? The lines of attack? There are two lines of attack. One God is love. Two marriage is love. But is this love? Matthew twenty two thirty four to forty. But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked them a question to test him. Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law? Specifically, they're asking him about the decalogue. What's the greatest of the ten commandments? Right? Some people would argue that it's the first one, nor the gods before me. Some people would argue that the greatest one was actually the fifth, because the fifth commandment would be the bridge between the first table of the law and the second table of the law. First table of the law, the vertical commandments, our duty toward God. Second table of the law horizontal commandments, our duty toward man. Fifth commandments is right there in the middle. Okay. Others would argue that the tenth commandment was the greatest commandment because coveting is really the source of all of our sins. Okay. So they asked Jesus, you know what's the greatest commandment? Is he gonna say one? Is he gonna say five? Is he gonna say ten? Is he gonna throw us a curve and say something else? How does he answer? And he said to him, you should love your the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. By the way, that's the summary of the first war commandments. Jesus, what's the greatest commandment? His response, I'm gonna have to say one through four. This is the greatest and first commandment. But wait, there's war, and the second is like it. You should love your neighbor as yourself. By the way, that's the summary of the second Table of the Law. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. So, Jesus, what's the greatest commandment? You know what, I'm gonna have to say, one through four, followed closely by five through ten. Why is this important? Because people try to pit love and law against one another. Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, are your mind, love your neighbor as yourself. This is not a substitute for the law. This is a summary of the law. Paul does the same thing in Romans thirteen. Oh, no one anything except to love each other. Yeah, man, get away from that lost stuff. Brother. It's all about love, not law. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet and any other commandments interesting second table of the law are summed up in this word. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. So Paul says very clearly. For those of you who are saying, well, you know, brother, you say that that's a summary of the second table of the law. I don't agree. Well, fine, don't agree with me, but you gotta agree with Paul. And Paul says, love your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the second table of the law. There is no such thing as lawless love. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Also, true love hates sin, Russe Grinthians thirteen four through six. Love is patient, Love is kind, does not envy or boast. It is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. Listen. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Homosexuality is wrongdoing. Biblical love cannot rejoice in homosexuality. Psalm ninety seventy ten, Oh, you who love the Lord, hate evil. He preserves the life of his saints. He delivers them from the hand of the wicked Romans twelve nine through ten. Let love be genuine, abhor what is evil, hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection, outdo one another in showing honor Rummans won thirty one to thirty two. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them, but give approval to those who practice them. We cannot give approval by the way. This is the passage where we find the strongest condemnation of homosexuality. True love judges according to God's standard. You know the New John three sixteen is Matthew seven to one. The old John three sixteen is John three sixteen, right, everybody used to know John three sixteen the gospel loved the world. Right now now the new one is Matthew seven to one. They may not know where it is, but they know what it says. Judge not lest you be judged. I love them when people bring this one up, like, really, it's awesome that you mentioned that. Can we keep reading Judge not that you be not judged, For with the judgment that you pronounce, you will be judged. And with the measure that you use, it will measure to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye when there is a log in your own eye, you hypocrite. First take the log out of your own eye and then leave your brother alone. Because we're not supposed to judge. Hm hmm. First take the log out of your own eye. Then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye, which is synonymous with judging. Hmmm. Why would I say, don't judge your brother, Just judge yourself. First, true love calls the wicked to repent. How can we not remember Ezekiel's words in Ezekiel three eighteen. If I say to the wicked, you shall surely die, and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked ways in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but the blood, But his blood, I will require your hands. Who's the loving neighbor? Is the loving neighbor the one who sees his neighbor's house on fire and says, I really wish I could help, but it would be so rude for me to go over and wake him up. Or he's either one who will beat on the door, kick the door down, and drag his neighbor out if he has to. Accepting homosexuality is not loving, It is the very opposite. For the sake of time, true love must never treat homosexuality with anything less than utter contempt and loathing. Oh wait, that doesn't sound very Christian, brother, You're supposed to love people. Ah, isn't that interesting? Let me read my statement again. Therefore, true love must never treat homosexuality with anything less than utter contempt and loathing is homosexuality? People? No, No, it's a lifestyle, but it really isn't. They have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases, the highest rates of promiscuity. The average homosexual male has over one hundred and fifty partners in his lifetime. Highest rates of domestic violence or as you say here, gender based violence. Lesbian women are much more violent to one another than men are to women. High rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, high rates of depression, high rates of suicide. Males take twenty to thirty years off their average life expectancy. Folks, this is not a lifestyle. It's a death style. How can I love people and embrace this death style? How can I love people and act like it is even remotely possible that I will accept homosexuality under any circumstances. This is horrible. What it does to people is horrible. Why do you eat shellfish? Why do you uphold some laws and not others? Amen,