I’d like to understand what you are saying a little better. Specifically, I want to know why you think my proposed solution doesn’t make sense “outside the confines of a Western Evangelical Christian life.”

My proposed solution has nothing to do with religious convictions but with a conviction that the problem of abortion starts as a problem with men not being able to control themselves. This isn’t about religion. It’s about the pragmatic consideration that the oppression of women is solved by men treating them properly. If every man kept his pants on, abortion wouldn’t be a women’s rights issue.

Your second claim about legislating morality is one that I understand and one that I agree with to a point. I don’t believe we should “legislate religion” but legislating morality is what we do all the time. The government has said that murder is not just wrong but also illegal. Therefore, laws and morality have always gone hand in hand. Immoral laws should be eliminated. Moral laws should be enacted.

So what role should the church have in all this? Well, first of all, I want to agree with you that the past history of religion has not always been one of moral uprightness. There have been many atrocities perpetrated in history and evil people have used many excuses for their evil. It just so happens that religion has been used as an excuse far too often. Nevertheless, you can’t blame religion as the cause of the evil unless there is something inherent to the faith that is taught which requires people to perpetrate that evil.

For example, the teaching of Jesus is that we should love our enemies, that we should show people grace and forgiveness, that we should proclaim good news to the broken-hearted. However, people who claim to follow Jesus have attacked religious enemies, have offered judgment, have proclaimed legalism, and have put a burden on the broken. Religious people were doing the same things in Jesus’ day, and he railed against them repeatedly.

All I’m trying to say is that just because people claiming to be followers of Jesus have done stupid and evil things, you can’t blame all followers of Jesus nor the church into which they are organized. It would be unjustified prejudice to negatively categorize an entire group of people based on the unfortunate acts of some members of that group.

Therefore, I do believe the church has something to say about current societal issues because the church was the first agency in history to promote the cause of women (see Paul’s teaching on how husbands should treat their wives), the first in history to promote the welfare of children (Jesus, Peter, and Paul all taught the value of children), and the first agency in history to promote universal forgiveness and love for all.

My question, motivated by my faith and also by my concern for the pragmatic realities of life, is this: How can we ensure the welfare of every life–born, unborn, poor, rich, male, female, black, white, urban, suburban, rural?

In the case of women’s rights and the rights of the unborn, I believe the answer lies partially in men being responsible, honorable, and respectful men.

The tenants of your post are compelling, by and large. The problem becomes that your solution makes little sense outside of the confines of a Western Evangelical Christian life. We can’t use the state to mandate the ethics that our religious convictions require. The church in the U.S. uses the state as a weapon against people whose beliefs do not match their own.

To cite the state’s intervention in civil rights actions, is a dangerous track. It was the church in South Africa which made Apartheid possible. And it was the church that saw the murders and wars of the middle ages. They also worked hand in hand with the state to virtually destroy the Native American world predating this country. And the church hasn’t gotten better with age. Blindly defending the horrible acts perpetuated by the state of Israel against the people of Palestine. And, closer to home, there is a parallel to be drawn for the marginalization of people who espouse “alternative sexual lifestyles.”

From a civil rights standpoint, the church doesn’t really have much in the line of street cred. And when morality is legislated, you have back alley abortions and black market pills.

Life is more than a heartbeat.

Just a thought: Would you give up the freedom to worship Christ, to live? If you use listed order as a basis for questioning intention, what happens when you apply that test to lists within the church or other cross sections of tradition.

If you address two sides of an issue, you have no vision. Issues have more than two sides.

You really do have to start with a belief in the God of the Bible to even consider analyzing and arguing over the Biblical text. Why would one criticize a text in which the criticizer does not consent to the existence of the author? It makes no sense.

As for me, I have seen “For the Bible Tells Me So” twice now. I wanted to make sure that I comprehended its message. I had been asked by a gay family member to do so. I heard the same condescending tone toward “conservative” Christians as you did in the film. What I disliked most were three things: 1) a comparison of humans to animals (for man is made in the image of God) 2) that a degree from an institution of higher learning makes an interpretation of a document, her the Bible, the “correct” one, and 3) that the moral laws and dietary laws of the Old Covenant were the same by nature. Jesus did not abolish the Law. He came to fulfill it.

With that said, I am a lawyer and an engineer. I’ve also studied some Greek and Hebrew. I’ve also studied the Bible. BIG DEAL! Jesus used the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. I love that Jesus took the “unschooled and ordinary” to CHANGE mankind forever. As you stated, one cannot deny the existence of Jesus just as one cannot deny the reality of Caesar or the city of Troy. It is what an individual does with the reality of Christ that is of eternal consequence. And to some, He will always be the Rock that causes men to stumble.

I will pray for you, for those who hate Christ, and for those who hate us for loving Him. Please remember He told us this would happen. I am so grateful for your humble heart as a pastor to not grow weary in doing good. I thought you might like this as a mathematician: Even Einstein said that “relativity applies to physics–NOT to truth.” Press on and God bless you, brother, Deborah Neilan

Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.

Human Cytochrom ‘C’ is closest to that of a sunflower.

Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.

Human skin is closest to that of a pig.”

Explain to me, how this fits in with primates??? With all due respect, i think his aim with “god set it up that way” was meant to be an insult of some kind. He sounds very passionate about this subject and with passion comes biases. While i’m not researched in anyway on this specific argument, generally speaking i’m convinced these people only look at their “evidence” with one prospective; 1st proves evolution or doesn’t.. They don’t even consider any other possibility of what it could mean..Taken at face value because i don’t know anything about the human gnome and could be missing key things due to pure ignorance. Start of video; You had plenty of time to research and form a “theory” on something then proceed to drop this well researched project on someone and expect them to refute you on the drop of dime?? I dont think you need a PHD to say; you should allow someone to try refute your findings within a respectable time frame. That seems like the most objective thing to do. Although i think this would show insecurity on “Ken’s” part. (To have holes punched in something your just presenting would be kind embarrassing. or was it arrogance?) Rest of video: Sounds like its not an exact match, “within 15 bases”, and something about Telomeres not belonging? The choice of “correspond with” instead of something like is “exactly like”, implicates some differences as well?.. But i could be completely wrong.. “no reason, no rhyme” sounds like he is insulting the bible as well. Would be very interested in hearing a completely objective view on these findings..

I agree that your solution appears at first to be extreme, but Jesus would seem to support removing a body part if it would give relief from temptation. Your solution, though extreme, sounds like it has brought you exactly that kind of peace and relief. I would love to know more about your journey. Please send me a link to your book.

My name is Scott and I struggled with homosexuality for many many years. I read your information on the site and what you say is VERY true. It was like there was a battle going on inside. I struggled with this for years and years and now I am free. In fact, I have written a book, although self-published, that speaks to the struggle and my ultimate solution. It’s not all that bazarre but when first stated, it sounds like I turned myself into some freak. I did not….I am, what I think, a pretty normal male—happily married with children. Faith in Jesus Christ led me to use the combination of the powerful mixture of “faith” and “works” which took me to the surgical procedure known as bilateral orchiectomy (castration). This may sound crazy because I too couldn’t believe it when the Spirit of God spoke directly to me as to this being the solution. I even remember saying, “No way. This can’t be.” Since that operation many years ago, I have discovered a peace and the cessation of the constant battle I once experienced. Although I am not trying to advocate this solution, I am advocating that people struggling with this issue or any other issue should NEVER stop seeking solutions with God’s help. My journey within my dark tunnel has become like a puzzle nicely put together to make a beautiful picture.

I would love to become involved in ministries to help others realize that they do not need to turn away from God, family or turn to the ultimate escape of suicide in order to find peace with this monster. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

God bless, Scott

I’m glad to hear that my posts have been helpful to you. I actually have my entire doctrinal statement available online (in a long form and in a shorter form), and if you want to read it, I’ll send it to you.

My wife and I just recently moved to Salt Lake City. This move has challenged me to not only know what I beleive, but go to the Bible, research, reinforce, and document what I believe. I am in the process of creating a Creed that describes what I believe and what my family will be built on. The purpose for that is so that I can be more effective in the ministry to those decieved by the LDS church. I have to say that while I have been doing my own research and documentation, I have found it interesting to read your new “Dogma” series of posts.

Hope all is well.

Thanks, Michael

Ironically, I preached from Matthew 24 this past week and came to the same conclusion you did in #1 that the most likely way of understanding the “one will be taken” passage is in light of the judgement of Noah’s day. The one “taken” seems to be parallel to the ones where were destroyed in Noah’s day.

Anyway, I’m sorry about the captcha you saw. Next time you post a comment, you won’t see it if you use the same email address. I get a couple hundred spam comments a day, and I have to use some system to thin out the good from the bad!

Grace and Peace.

I have been down these roads from both sides of the fence and would just make a comment or two. First let me say, it looks like you are doing a work for God, that is good.

1. It will appear to you if you look closely at Matthew 24 that this is not at all speaking of the rapture. If so, it defies the first rules of exposition. “If the plain sense makes sense, we need no other sense.” note that Matt. 24 uses the example of Noah and the flood. If you examine this closely, you will remember that those taken in the flood were taken in judgement. this fits the entire Scripture surrounding Matt. 24.

2. IF matthew 24 IS speaking of the rapture then that rapture is certainly Post tribulational. We can safely say that becausse of the Illustration of Noah and the flood. This is why the liberal crowd of Scofield’s day held our crowd in such derision.

3. It would also behoove us to look at who this chapter was written to. To the Jews and it is plain. While the church is certainly in view in the latter chapters of the Gospels and beginning of acts, we can’t be answering the Jewish Disciples of the pre church era with church promises. They were looking for the promises to the Jews. The church was the “mystery’ revealed by Paul. To think otherwise does despite to the Scripture.

I’ve been on the other side of this argument. I understand the thinking, it just doesn’t fit the scriptures. We have to make Scripture our basis of thinking. We can’t look for what we think and believe and see if we can find justification for our thinking. It just doesn’t work that way.

I’m not picking on anyone here. I’m just one who has had to relearn truth when i tried to align myself with Scripture. When Jesus was asked by the disciples why others were doing it different than themselves HE said to “leave them alone”. If they are not against us, they must be with us. Makes good sense and I think we do hurt to God’s people when we choose to attack such a vast number of other people who believe somewhat different about whether and how depravity has done despite. I’m speaking of those who have responded to “Whosoever will may come”. God is not a schizophrenic.

There Is no divisiveness in Scripture between, “Whosever will” and “Chosen in Him”. They are fully integrated here in our Scripture. The problem is US. “My ways are above your ways and past finding out”. What part of that can we not understand.

In Christ love, John

saw your “captcha” thing. If you don’t want comments don’t suggest it. I’m willing. Just a preacher, not a computer nut.

The Salvation Army should have the right to do whatever they want to when it comes to hiring and firing. They also should have the right to discriminate when it comes to whom they service. As a private entity, they have the right to discriminate within certain limits. However, the simple fact is that they don’t discriminate, and just because they might be religiously convinced against hiring gay staff members, that is no reason to conclude that they will soon withhold services from people based on sexual issues. The passage you quoted above is an example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.

Now, this statement you quoted is true:

If an otherwise qualified employee can be fired simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression, what guarantee is there that clients, including LGBT homeless youth, will be supported and treated fairly?

That statement is true because there is no guarantee, but and there never will be, and we don’t need one. We don’t need a guarantee because we have a track record. The Salvation Army does not, to my knowledge, reject gay people of any age because of sexuality. We also don’t need a guarantee because we have a free society. If one agency begins to discriminate, people are free to start one that doesn’t, pursue funding and all that. Rather than spending millions to lobby against certain faith-based groups, why not spend all that money doing the work of helping the people you want to help!

Nevertheless, I’m not interested in debating the merits of government-funded faith-based services. I have some opinions about it, but that’s unimportant.

Simply put, I think we need to care for the poor. We need to shelter the homeless. We need to train the uneducated. We need to employ the unemployed. We need to do these things for people because they are people. Therefore, I don’t like adding extra labels and/or emphases as if we need to pay extra attention to the needs of the black homeless, or the white homeless, or the LGBT homeless. Granted, each individual homeless person has a reason for their homelessness, and that reason should be addressed. However, I just don’t see the need to put extra emphasis on any particular category either in discrimination or anti-discrimination.

In fact, according to my Bible, the only guidelines we are given when it comes to discriminating against or for people in need are that we cannot treat the poor as inferior or show favoritism of any sort (James 2:2-9), that we should refrain from helping societal leeches and people who should be helped by family (1 Timothy 5:9-16, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15), and that we should do good to all but show preferential treatment for the “family of believers” (Galatians 6:9-10).