Category Archives: Homosexuality

Bill Lockwood: Preaching against Homosexuality?

by Bill Lockwood

Many voices in the Catholic Church are exulting in the September 1 appointment by Pope Francis of pro-homosexual Archbishop Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, Italy to the position of cardinal. Zuppi was one of 13 individuals promoted. PinkNews, an online news agency for the global LGBT+ community, praised the new appointment precisely because Zuppi is a “pro-LGBT+” advocate.

Another celebrant to the appointment is Fr. James Martin, author of a pro-LGBT+ Catholic book called Building a Bridge. Zuppi had written the “Foreward” to Martin’s book. According to PinkNews, “Zuppi identifies that there is ‘a bridge that needs continuous building’ between the Church and the LGTB+ community, who he describes as ‘people of God.’”

Amazingly, so far from the word of God have many Catholics strayed that Archbishop Zuppi calls the homosexual network in the world “the people of God.” The fact that Zuppi has been named as “cardinal” means he will be able to vote for the next pope when that time arrives (Michael Chapman, CNSnews.com; 9-9-19).

According to PinkNews, the appointment is also “celebrated” among “more progressive Christians, who hope the Pope’s choice of cardinals reflects his vision for ‘a Church of dialogue.’”

So here it is. The Roman Catholic Church is setting a trajectory for pro-homosexual teaching in the future, discarding not only hundreds of years of teaching, but more importantly, the clear biblical teaching which describes homosexuality as not only sin, but “perversion” (Jude 7, NIV). But such is expected to be the case in a church not found on the pages of the New Testament.

Reaction

The real shocker in all of this is the reaction which many in the “Christian world” have exhibited. Instead of lamenting the direction of society, including those who claim to be “spiritual leaders,” many are celebrating it. If not celebrating—at least defending it.

One person wrote in response to the posted simple news story—“So if you are a Christian or go to church you have to hate gays?”

This is the knee-jerk reaction of people who cannot take biblical teaching regarding sin of any kind. They hurl accusations of “hatred” upon those who point out sin. By this logic Jesus Himself was a “hater” because he taught against “fornication”—which includes homosexuality (Matt. 19:9).

Another responded: “Let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Once again, an anemic effort to thwart the biblical teaching against sin. Since all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) we might as well just put a cork in our mouths when it comes to quoting passages that condemn sin. But more than this, the Bible nowhere teaches that all sin is the same sin.

It is true that all sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2); but it is also true that some sins have a much more deleterious effect upon society and upon one’s soul than other sins. Even Jesus referred to some sins “as greater” (John 19:11). Paul wrote that some sins have more serious effect upon one’s body (1 Cor. 6:18), perhaps by twisting the mind more wickedly.

It is difficult to believe that modern people have come to the conclusion that the sin of burning children alive in the fires to false gods—as did some Israelites in the OT (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35, et. al.)—is no more culpable than a “white lie” spoken to one’s parents. Both are sins—but one not only has many more harmful effects on society as a whole but indicates a deeper depth of depravity than the other.

So it is with homosexuality. Inspired Apostle Paul called the sin of homosexuality “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26) and a “vile passion.” It occurs when God “has given up a society” (1:24). Jude referred to it as “going after strange flesh” (Jude 7, ASV) or “perversion” (NIV). God said plainly in Leviticus that there were a number of particular sins, including bestiality and homosexuality, for which the “land will vomit you out” (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22). Not all sins fell into this category. Not all sins are classed as “perverted.”

Still another asks, “Do you love the sinner when you point out sin?” Once more, this sounds as if the biblical doctrine against homosexuality makes us just simply nervous. We immediately dodge by questioning the motives of someone pointing out the sin of homosexuality.

What if I had no love of God in my heart for any sinner? Would that change the truth? Absolutely not. Jonah preached the truth of God to Nineveh (Jonah 3). Nineveh would be overthrown unless they repented. I wonder if the Ninevites squirmed beneath this message by saying—“do you have LOVE for us Ninevites?” –as if to say that somehow the message would be changed if he did not.

But as a matter of fact, Jonah did NOT have love of people in his heart. He was very angry (Jonah 4:1) that Nineveh was spared upon their repentance. He wanted them destroyed!! As all can easily see however, this had nothing to do with the message itself. Jonah delivered the message faithfully even though his motives were not what they ought to be.

It is a perfect illustration of the modern generation being non-thinking, even practicing “avoidance behavior,” on the topic of sin. Whenever sin is pointed out or preached against, we dismiss the teaching by suggesting that “too many people hate.”

Reality is: we are so unaccustomed to God’s Unfiltered Word that we perform many mental gymnastics to avoid its impact—including charging preachers of the Word with being “haters.”

If I do not love one person in the world as I preach it does not change the fact that I am to preach and people need to accept the truth of God. The issue of homosexuality is not whether I love or hate. The issue is: What does the Bible teach, and am I to teach it? If I do not love as I am commanded to do, that is another issue entirely. And what IS occurring today is an overturning of society by the false prophets of the Roman Church by the appointment of pro-homosexual bishops to higher leadership positions.

Sanctity of Family

Sanctity of Family

by Bill Lockwood

The God-designed family is the basic unit of any stable society. The apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the Savior of the body. … Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for it…” Earlier, he addressed himself to wives to “be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” Finally, he reminded them of the basic institution of family God ordained from the beginning, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh.” (5:22-31).

As a basic building block of society the family was recognized as a “sacred” institution in the ancient Roman Empire (F.W. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity). “Family life among the Romans had once been a sacred thing, and for 520 years divorce had been unknown among them” (p. 5).  Farrar notes that the “greatness” of the Roman “state was founded on the sanctity of family relationships.” However, just as in America, the dissolution of the entire Roman way of life was at hand as the family began to tear apart.  “[M]arriage” came to be “regarded with disfavor and disdain. Women … married in order to be divorced, and were divorced in order to marry; the noble Roman matrons counted the years not by the Consuls, but by their discarded husbands.”

Soon the entire bond of society began to dissolve. “Literature and art were infected with the prevalent degradation. Poetry sank in great measure into exaggerated satire, hollow declamation, or frivolous epigrams. Art was partly corrupted by the fondness for glare, expensiveness …and partly sank into miserable triviality, or immoral pettiness.” Finally, the welfare state totally corrupted the culture and ultimately dissolved what was left of the family. For example, just above the “slave class” the “freeborn inhabitants of the Roman Empire” were, for the most part, beggars and idler. “Despising a life of honest industry, they asked only for bread and the games of the circus, and were ready to support any Government, even the most despotic, if it would supply these needs.

They spent their mornings in lounging about the Forum, or in dancing attendance at the levees of patrons, …enjoying the polluted plays of the theater, or looking with fierce thrills of delighted horror and the bloody sports in the arena. And night they crept up to their miserable garrets [apartments] in the sixth and seventh stories of the huge ‘insulae’—lodging houses of Rome … into which drifted all that was most wretched and vile.”  So dependent was the population upon government funding that the entire populace of Imperial Rome “might be trembling lest they should be starved by the delay of an Alexandrian corn-ship …”
These crushing societal problems begin with the dissolution of the family.

The recent Obergefell decision at the Supreme Court actually redefined the family unit. Open relationships, multiple partners, temporary partners are in the wake of this pro-Sodomite dictatorship. Make no mistake. This is exactly how the pro-homosexual crowd sees the decision. We are tracking along the ruin of Rome. E.J. Graff, a leading  LGBT advocate, exults that the Court is “sending a message” which will “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.” She argues “it announces that marriage just changed shape.” Professor Ellen Willis delighted that “conferring legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.” This is the point.

Michelangelo Signorile, a pro-homosexual advocate, urges couples to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk the myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” (Ryan Anderson, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, 42). The most important construction site Christians will ever occupy is the family unit. Make yours a godly one. Our culture seeks to destroy it and is already celebrating over its expected demise. It is past time for Christians to take a principled stand against our overreaching federal government.  

Back to Homepage

 

America’s War Against Christ

America’s War Against Christ

by Bill Lockwood

The handwriting on the wall translates pretty simply. America has an elected leadership that openly wars against Jesus Christ and those who call Him Lord. Issuing from the White House and running through all departments of the government, Barack Obama’s hostility to God is manifest. Nothing that comes before the citizenship of America overturns that conclusion, but rather reinforces it.

Homosexual Marriage

If Americans were somehow in the dark about this hostility, the Supreme Court Obergefell decision this summer dispels that mist. For the first time since mankind has been managed by governments, God, all of history, Natural Law, and common decency were boldly cast behind its back by redefining marriage as to officially include same-sex unions.

As Justice Alito pointed out during oral arguments, there have been many “cultures that did not frown upon homosexuality …Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds.” And yet, America is the first culture to engraft this into law. Homosexuality has always existed, but never did any peoples confuse it with legitimate marriage—until the liberals in America captured politics and the media. The fallout of this Supreme Court Sodomite decision will be enormous, and our nation is already feeling its effects. Obama’s lawyer, Donald Verilli, stated to the Supreme Court during Obergefell argumentation when asked about the impact on churches and other non-profit groups, “That WILL BE an issue.”  But this is just the beginning.

Equality Act of 2015

Before the current Congress is a bill introduced into the House and the Senate called the Full Equality Act of 2015. Sponsored by Democratic and homosexual lawmakers it would expand existing federal laws to include legal protections for LGBT individuals in areas such as housing and employment. As reported by CBS News its “most sweeping move” is to “add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classes protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” It proposes to forbid businesses from discriminating against LGBT people in hiring, firing and supposedly would “exempt” religious schools and hospitals from the legislation.

But WorldNetDaily noted that a recent Chicago event hosted by a “gay rights group” called Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT leaders discussed their agenda for The Equality Act. They proudly boast of gutting the protections written into the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Their agenda? “[B]eliefs cannot provide a claim, defense or basis against the progressive agenda of the LGBT special interests.” Governing authorities agree. We cannot allow personal beliefs to trump state doctrine.

Illustrative of this is the 2013 case of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. The owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, Barronelle Stutzman, was asked to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. The state of Washington had redefined marriage the previous year. Robert Ingersoll had been a regular customer of Arlene’s Flowers for nearly a decade and Stutzman was his friend. There never was any refusal to serve Robert Ingersoll. However, when Ingersoll asked Stutzman to serve his “wedding” to Curt Freed she kindly refused citing her relationship to Jesus Christ. She knows what common sense Americans also realize: There is a difference between serving homosexual individuals and being forced to participate in a homosexual wedding.

The homosexual agenda does not allow a religious conscious to operate freely in the market. Friendships, niceties and even familial relationships are mere facades for an aggressive trampling of Christianity. A lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers therefore ensued and the state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, pointed to violations of the state’s sexual orientation laws. A judge ruled against Ms. Stutzman and her property is still at risk of government seizure.

Misdirection by CBS

Having seen the case above, now read the recent “news coverage” of The Equality Act by CBS News (7-23-15) in the article mentioned above. It reports that The Act is needed because it would “clarify that RFRA cannot be used to sanction businesses’ discrimination against LGBT customers.” (emp. added) But Baronelle Stutzman never refused to do business with her homosexual friends. No case of which this writer is aware has a private business—whether florist, photographer, wedding chapel, or any other—refused services to a homosexual. What has been refused is PARTICIPATION in celebrating a homosexual “wedding or honeymoon.” There is a vast difference and CBS News does not want you to find it.

Let’s see if the government itself knows the difference.

When it comes to accommodating Islamic faith, our government bends over backwards to assist. From the Live Trucking website is this current headline: “Muslim Truck Drivers Who Refused To Haul Alcohol Awarded $240,000 In Religious Discrimination Suit.” “They were fired after refusing the load due to religious beliefs.”
Two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol were awarded $240,000 by an Illinois judge for their termination. Mahad Abass Mohammed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale had been fired from Illinois-based Star Transport in 2009 for their refusal to transport alcohol, citing religious faith as the reason.

On their behalf the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a government arm, stepped up to sue Star Transport. Star Transport now is ordered to pay the punitive damages. This is the same EEOC of which Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University Law is a member and has gone on record against CHRISTIAN RESERVATIONS on the homosexual issue. Feldblum wrote: “For all my sympathy for the evangelical couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried, straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero-sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play … I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”

With all the manufactured soberness at her disposal, EEOC’s Feldblum must come down against Christianity in favor of homosexual marriage. It is a serious civil rights issue, after all. But violate a Muslim’s faith and the same EEOC will side with Islam. What is the difference? Only one explanation exists for those who still have eyes to see. Our culture is not deteriorating beneath a “religious war.” It is an all-out assault specifically against Jesus Christ and His Church. As explained by Paul, “Our wrestling [fight] is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.”

Back to Homepage

Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Homosexuality is Not Genetic

by Bill Lockwood

There is no “gay gene.” As much as the anti-religious crowd dislikes that fact and in spite of the cultural pressure to discover some biological factor that is responsible for homosexual behavior, no “gay gene” has been found. At a recent 2015 meeting of the American Society of Genetics scientists presented their “gene-based algorithm” which supposedly could predict male homosexuality with 70 percent accuracy.

But as Yasmin Tayag observes in an article entitled, How to Talk about the “Gay Gene” Without Being Homophobic or Wrong, Step one: Don’t Call it a “Gay Gene,” “The scientists from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine discovered that methylation, a form of DNA modification, in certain regions of the genome differed between homosexual and heterosexual identical twin brothers. What they did not find were the elusive ‘gay genes.’”

But Tayag’s headline says it all, doesn’t it? We need to learn “how to talk” about it. No science. No biological fact. Certainly, no Bible. Just cultural instructions on how to address the issue. This reaches back to the restructuring of our language two decades ago when “sexual preference” was politically replaced by “sexual orientation.” The homosexual agenda works off of a high pressure belief-system which molds our anti-God culture from education to entertainment to politics by making it socially incorrect to suggest that homosexuality is a choice that people make. Science comes later, if at all.

Isn’t this exactly how liberalism works? Political pressure for society to conform to its worldview—worry about facts later. Charles Darwin floated the theory of evolution and suggested that science would discover evidence for change in the rocks as time moved forward. “Discovery” mattered little. What was important was that the doctrinaire was altered and it became “out-of-touch” to express an objecting opinion. See also how human-caused Climate Change deniers are being persecuted for being suspicious of political mandates that “the science is in!”

Back to supposed Gene-caused homosexuality.

From the radical left UK blog called The Guardian this recent observation was written by Simon Copland (7-10-15):  “This is the major problem that advocates of a gay gene face. Our sexual desires and ideals change based on our society at any given time. Do proponents of the gay gene believe that those in Ancient Greece … had a greater prevalence of a gay gene than we do today? Do our perceptions of female beauty change over the times because of shifts in the genes of straight men?” “Of course this still doesn’t answer the question of where our sexuality comes from.

When faced with this criticism, proponents of the gay gene ask the question, ‘Why would people choose to be gay in a world where homosexuality is so persecuted?’ We live in a society where non-heterosexual sex is still highly discriminated against, so why are there homosexuals in this world?” Homosexuality is a choice. Further, where in America are homosexuals jailed for their “choice to be gay?” Seems like County Clerks are jailed for Christian beliefs and the military is cracking down on Christian views—certainly not homosexual ones.

Copland, in answer to where sexuality “comes from,” offers: “The answer is complex, and we don’t really know all the factors involved. But look at the current research and you can see that social conditions still play a major role.” I would say “the decisive role” is more like it. Then follows this from Copland, For example, whilst almost all of the focus of research into the gay gene has focused on gay men, research into female sexual desires has continued as well.

In 2006 for example,  HYPERLINK “http://www.csw.ucla.edu/publications/newsletters/academic-year-2006-07/article-pdfs/Dec06_Garnets_Peplau.pdf” Linda Garnets and Anne Peplau presented research they described as a “paradigm shift” into female sexuality. Their research found that women’s sexual orientation is potentially fluid, shaped by life experiences and can change over the course of a life span. Of particular importance they found that female sexual orientation is “shaped by such social and cultural factors as women’s education, social status and power, economic opportunities, and attitudes about women’s roles.”

This pro-homosexual outlet says that sexual “orientation” is due to “attitudes” and “social and cultural factors.” Copland concludes, Where does this leave us? Clearly we do not know how sexuality is created and why some people end up with different sexual desires than others. But if we look at our history it is clear that it is not due to some inherent genetic marker.  HYPERLINK “http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2014/opinion/an-evolutionary-view-of-gay-genes”

Jenny Graves at La Trobe University in Australia suggests that what is likely is that both men and women will inherit genetic variants leading to them being “somewhere between very male-loving and very female-loving”. Or, as I would describe it, we have human-loving genes. Homosexuality therefore is not due to genes, but develops, as  HYPERLINK “http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/apr/22/julie-bindel-i-m-a-lesbian-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way-video” Julie Bindel says, due to “a mix of opportunity, luck, chance, and, quite frankly, bravery.” (emp. added)

As The Guardian put it, “People have searched for centuries to find biological reasons for sexual desires. But what if it all comes down to choice?” Good question. The ramifications of homosexuality being a “choice” are gigantic. From the Supreme Court and flowing through our collegiate classrooms and entertainment industry, America itself has re-structured marriage and therefore our entire society to conform to demands of the homosexual doctrine. But the few pulpits that have remained undaunted by a hedonistic civilization and continue to announce that homosexuality is sinful — and therefore is oriented to choices we make and NOT biology — are nearer the truth than anointed cultural leaders.

Back to Homepage

 

From the Dictator’s Table

From the Dictator’s Table

by Bill Lockwood

Homosexual immorality prevails over Freedom. President Barack Obama this week celebrates using government force to enshrine immoral sodomy as more important than religious rights. “Gay rights,” soft-shell terminology for homosexual practices, known throughout history as “sodomy” (Genesis 19), nullifies freedom of religion. Immorality trumps Christianity. This is not just Obama’s doctrine. He labored to put the teeth of the law into it.

At the Democratic National Committee’s celebration last week in New York for the LGBT movement, Obama cheered the accomplishment of encoding sodomy into American law and jurisprudence. “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions …BUT we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”

There we have it. No matter how many county clerks or bakeries refuse to bow before the president’s idol of hedonism, Obama will have his way including punishment of Christians. This is “moving America forward” to Obama, better known as “descending downward” to the pits of Sodom and Gomorrah for those oriented in Bible basics as well as Natural Law.

Meanwhile, state legislators beg for government crumbs that might fall from the dictator’s table—just a tiny crumb of “exemption” for preachers and Bible believers that they might avoid incarceration for opening their mouths to protest. “As long as they remain in their church houses,” says the King. “Don’t bring your pleas into the public square!” “This much favor we will give you—for now,” adds the Monarch.

Little known to Americans is the fact that the Homosexual Agenda, of which Obama is the champion, opposes “conversion therapy,” or “reparative therapy or Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE).”  This consists of counseling to change one’s sexual attraction from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Laws that prohibit this for minors are already on the books in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia. In other words, preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit in houses of worship will soon be outlawed as well. Preaching will be classified as “conversion therapy” and pulpiteers lack a license. This is why the Monarch says, “for now” you religious people may at least speak freely but only in your houses of worship.

How Did We Get Here?

It has been a long road ‘a-winding,’ but within the ‘presidency’ of Barack Obama, the markers are clear. Each has been a lie on the grandest of scales. Take, for example, Obama’s recent speech to his jesters, the Democratic National Committee. According to Obama himself, he himself did not favor homosexual marriage before his second term on the throne. Yet, he classified in his DNC speech any disfavor to sodomite marriage as “denying Americans their constitutional rights.” Are we to believe that Obama himself was in the business of denying basic constitutional rights before coming into office?

Obama glowed in the cheers of the fawning crowds. “We have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry” and “for freedom!” Does this mean that he was a bigot in favor of slavery prior to his second term? At the “gay” festival Obama quoted Harvey Milk, a San Francisco city official who had a desire for sex with young boys, as one of his hero’s. “Harvey Milk once said, ‘If a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone.’ But to those of us who’ve made it through these doors, we’ve got a unique obligation to reach back and make sure other people can make it through these doors, too.”

In July, Obama traveled to Kenya. According to CNN, Obama shunned the advice of his court who recommend he avoid the topic of homosexuality. But pompous Obama went ahead and lectured the Kenyan president on “Gay Rights” in which he “equated legalized discrimination of gays to legalized racism in America.” This must mean that Obama classifies himself as a racist until his second term.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta defended his countrymen against Obama’s arrogance. “It is very difficult for us to be able to impose on people that which they themselves do not accept. This is why I repeatedly say for Kenyans today the (gay rights issue) is generally a non-issue. We want to focus on other areas.”
Sure it is, however, that Obama showed Kenyatta how to overcome the convictions of a moral people and “nudge” them to “pitch their tents toward Sodom.”

Are we to believe that Obama classifies himself as a “racist homophobic bigot that was in the business of denying basic Constitutional rights to fellow Americans” during his initial run for presidency and his first term in office? No. He is the LIAR-in-CHIEF who waited until he felt American were lying prostrate before his throne before he wiped his dictatorial feet on our backs.

Back to Homepage