Video: Brown schools Piers Morgan on biblical view of homosexuality

Video description:

It was not a good night for Piers Morgan's prepared talking points on Robertson's controversial statements about homosexuality, as two of his three panelists would not allow him any wiggle room on his false premises and biblical misconceptions.

Michael Brown has it exactly right!

He and I came to the exact same conclusions independently. We aren't the only ones. People who read the Bible in-depth and focus upon the words of Jesus as to how they do or don't apply to situations and who don't manipulate them for preconceived reasons, invariably conclude that Jesus was absolutely opposed to homosexuality.

Watch the video. Then read my brief comment below.

Dr. Michael Brown schools Piers Morgan on biblical view of homosexuality. CNN. 12/19/2013 - YouTube

Jesus's words: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:19)


Tom Usher

As I've said for many years now, absolutely no homosexual could engage in sex with someone of the same sex without violating the prohibition against adultery or fornication.

It was not possible for a homosexual to be legally married to anyone of the same sex. Jesus carved out zero exceptions for homosexuality.

Secular and religious sanctioning of homosexual marriage is anti-Christ. There's no way around it. This is not a figurative usage. Jesus is being literal in the common understanding of that term "literal."

When fornication, that is πορνεία, transliterated as porneia, is used figuratively, it is alluding back to the literal. Both are evil. When idolatry is condemned figuratively or metaphorically as porneia (adultery, fornication, including harlotry, homosexuality, and bestiality, etc.), it doesn't relieve the homosexual of the sin of homosexuality. It doesn't contextually narrow the sin to idolatry. It means that going after other gods is as bad as homosexuality, etc.

This is fundamental. It is a huge error to claim Jesus and/or Paul were referring only to idolatry as being wicked and not that the root word/concept being alluded to was not also wicked. Were it otherwise, the figurative impact would also be its opposite. If idolatry is as homosexuality while homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God, then idolatry would also be acceptable.

If you can't comprehend this very basic concept, I'm sorry for you; but there's no way around it. You either grasp it and think correctly on it, or you live in ignorance on the matter.

I don't say this to offend you. The truth about Jesus's words vis-a-vis homosexuality as I've outlined them above is inescapable; and if you will receive it, it will set you free.


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.
    • Arshad Sherif, M.A., M.Ed.

      In the segment shown here, it is not Piers Morgan who feels the full force of the counterpunch. It is Marc Lamont Hill who gets a lynching. Marc Lamont Hill used the opportunity to try and be a hero, but he fell on his face. He comes to the defense of Piers Morgan but he is totally ineffective against a Biblical scholar who came prepared to deliver a knockout. I cannot comprehend how Marc Lamont Hill teaches at Columbia University. He isn't good enough to be a student at that college. A totally incompetent Negro. Columbia University is, of course, Obama's alma mater and apparently the university feels some pressure to be a shining example of affirmative action. But an idiot who makes an idiot of himself on national TV doesn't do the university any good.

      We have a Negro for President now and he is a product of Columbia University. Now Columbia should worry less about affirmative action and more about its image as a university that employs world class faculty. A faculty that can think logically on its feet in front of an international audience. A faculty that can make cogent and meaningful arguments. Not a faculty that will disgrace itself and the university in full public view.

      • A word to the wise, if you post the same comment around the Internet on DISQUS, you'll risk being marked as a spammer by some admin. All moderators will be able to see that across the entire DISQUS network. You don't have many DISQUS comments. I'm assuming you're likely new to it.

        Second thing, it's possible to oppose affirmative action without being a racist. I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I say that because there are many who would read your comment and instantly conclude that you are a racist.

        As for the reason I focused on Morgan, it's because he has the megaphone and name recognition. That said, I agree with your point because Morgan doesn't know enough about the issue to even begin to attempt to put up a hermeneutical argument.

        • Arshad Sherif, M.A., M.Ed.

          I appreciate the words of wisdom from the man himself, the author of the article. I think you are right, once is enough. A comment doesn't have to be posted twice unless the original posting is removed.

          As regards your second point, I am not sure whether your remarks help or hurt. Once you use the word "racist," the damage has already been done! Is it racist to use the word Negro, for example? "Negro" refers to a race of people, just like "Caucasian." It is true that "Negro" is not used much nowadays, probably because "Negro" is homophonic with a very bad. A word we are not allowed to use. (Although it is a term of endearment between black folk.) But I remind you that "Negro" was used over and over again by MLK, including in his landmark "I Have a Dream" speech. And we must not forget that "Negro" was a racial classification in the 2010 U.S. Census forms.

          Finally, I agree with your estimation of Piers Morgan. He is no Larry

        • A hardware failure prevented me from "approving" your comment until today.

          Change the term from Negro to Black, and most people would still take your comment as racist. By the way, I didn't mention "Negro." I focused on affirmative action. I hope you aren't going around using the term Negro in order to bait people into arguing so you can bring up Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.

          Regardless, the topic of the article concerns a deep debate in Christianity about the use of the term fornication for the Greek term "πορνεία" (transliterated: porneia) and whether it meant sex out of wedlock the way it does today. I've read the "liberal" arguments and don't concur for a number of reasons I won't go into in this reply.

          I'm not aware that Larry King is an expert on such issues.

        • You might find this interesting:

          "While easy, the case of Barack Obama should prove illustrative of the problems with identity politics, but not merely as a person of color who is also a member of the ruling class. Rather than mobilizing the class as a representative of an oppressed and super-exploited group within that class, as the Obama narrative suggested, Obama has served as a decoy of identity, a decoy that has been used precisely to divert change potentiality into a Democratic Party cul de sac and away from substantial politics. That is to say, identity and its rhetorics have been deployed as a substitute for a politics that grasps such identities as parts of a broader class oppression and exploitation. As in many other cases, in the case of Obama, identity politics has elevated identity to supremacy in political meaning, serving as a trompe-l'Å“il by suggesting that "race" has a necessary political meaning. But "race," like other identities, has no necessary political meaning. It is thus a faulty gauge for the politics of identity group members." -- Michael Rectenwald ("From the Vampire Castle to Duck Dynasty: The Ideals of Identity Politics and How it Functions":