The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave [Strong's: G4347 προσκολλάω, proskollao, pros-kol-lay'-o, From G4314 and G2853; to glue to, that is, (figuratively) to adhere: - cleave, join (self).] to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:3-9

This is also an argument for monogamy, but that's another issue.

This comes from Genesis:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:27

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:23-24

You see that Jesus is referring to the sexual bond between man and woman and not man and man. The woman is the man's "help meet," meaning mate. They can procreate together. Males and males can't do that naturally. It doesn't mean that the literal interpretation of Creation as espoused by the self-styled Fundamentalists is supported in total by Jesus. Jesus still uses figurative language in his parables. The creation story is a parable. It teaches truisms.

Now look. All this stuff about Christianity accepting homosexuality is total garbage. Christianity is the religion of Jesus. Jesus set the rules by saying the rules spoken to him from the mouth of God. No one is a Christian who doesn't freely admit, and follow, to the best of his or her ability, the teaching from God related by Jesus. No one may come along and change that teaching and rightly be called a Christian. Male and female is the cause for a man to leave father and mother, not male and male. There is no acceptable sexual union between male and male in Christianity. Do you understand? Read it. Homosexuals are at best fornicators and at worse adulterers when it comes to engaging in the behavior. They can be no better without repenting and renouncing all homosexuality. The same applies to females. Lesbianism is forbidden in Christianity. There are no two ways about it, period.

Now, as I've written before, there are people who are born hermaphrodites. They are neither entirely male nor female. Society has taken it upon itself to perform surgery and to pump the children with hormones. That's not Christian. Consider also how the flesh becomes more confused on account of human transgressions. People become ill due to human pollution, both external and internal. People are born with defects due to that same pollution. The message of Jesus is the perfection even of the flesh (healing, being made whole, which also means wholesome in the moral sense — it's inextricable).

I've said that Jesus says to those of Capernaum that the sinners of Sodom would have repented had Jesus done the signs in Sodom that he did in Capernaum. What would they have repented of if not the sin of homosexuality and their other sins? The prevalent sin of Sodom was Sodomy or anal intercourse between males.

Paul certainly believed that homosexuality was still sin.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. — Romans 1:24-27.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. [Strong's: G733 αρσενοκοίτης, arsenokoites, ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace, From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.] — 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Furthermore, as I said above, Jesus says that the Sodomites would have repented, meaning being sorry and changed their ways or behavior, further meaning, they would have stopped, among other things, being homosexuals. Jesus says it is possible to change from being a sinner. It's the message of the resurrection. Even the dead flesh can be completely healed.

Helpful links: "Research shows homosexuality 100% wrong, 100% of the time," Gay Christian Movement Watch

Is Homosexuality A Sin?

I don't subscribe to the position that, because Paul said it, it is therefore Gospel. However, in this instance, Paul is consistent with Jesus. I also don't subscribe to the blanket statement that if something is genetic, it is not sin. Knowing something is harmful to other human beings and going ahead and doing it anyway is sin regardless of genetics.

Furthermore, the human brain can be connected to God, and that can be the beginning of overcoming all defects of the flesh, genetic or otherwise and that may precipitate materialists to excuse disorderly and confused behaviors.

God has power over genetics too. That truth seems to be lost even on those who consider themselves the faithful. Sure, this is not a "scientific" position. Neither are the miracles Jesus showed "scientific." So what? The current so-called science (which used to mean knowledge; hence Christian Scientists taking the word science) is not the end-all-be-all, far from it.

A link provided in the article at cited above:

"Is There a "Gay Gene?"

The ... article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books. Updated: 8 February 2008

Another excellent article on the NARTH site is the following:

"APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports a Client's Right to Self-Determination," The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known: that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data. By, A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH. NARTH. March 6, 2008.

hermaphrodites, homosexuality, Homosexuals, idolaters, Jeffrey Satinover, Jesus, Lesbianism, liberal, literal interpretation, mate, materialists, Matthew 19:3-9, monogamy, Moses, NARTH, National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, news, parables, perfection, Pharisees, philosophy, politics, pollution, procreate, religion, repenting, resurrection, Romans 1:24-27, science, scientific, Self-Determination, sexual, sexual union, sin, society, Sodom, Sodomites, Sodomy, spirituality, technology, The Journal of Human Sexuality, theology, Tom Usher, truisms, wholesome[/tags] —>


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.