Can the gay christian movement ever hope to reconcile its wayward heterodoxy with Biblical orthodoxy?
While we are tempted to state that there is a titanic battle between what is good and what is evil, we will refrain from making such misleading statements. The truth is that God is supreme and superior in all things. There is no one, no thing, no view, no movement and no lie which can measure up to the astonishing omnipotence of our God and his Christ. Perhaps this is why David asked in Psalms 2: “Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed?”
It is vain, when one considers Jesus’ monumental victory at Calvary.
But yet, gay christian movement leaders continue to make vain, outrageous, shock-value statements in an attempt to justify a method of sexual expression clearly outlawed in the scriptures. Judge for yourself:
A gay church in Indianopolis (Jesus MCC) recently spent $20,000 on a billboard project which declared Jesus would not “discriminate”. But before they could they could declare that Jesus would not discrimate, they first had to purchase a $55,000 ventriloquist model of Jesus to speak for them.
In the propaganda campaign the church asserted falsely that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers.
Considering that is was Naomi who coached Ruth on how to meet and marry Boaz, a lesbian relationship among the two women is highly speculative. Then, if this was a sexual relationship allegedly sanctioned by God, once the pair arrived back in Isreal from Moab, God ended it. (perhaps a case of the first ex-lesbians?). The truth is Ruth only followed Naomi because she had a divine destiny to fulfill. Her engrafting into the lineage of Jesus Christ would not have occured had Ruth been in a lesbian relationship.
However, the very need for this clarification demonstrates the blatant contradictions and coverups among religious homosexuals. A standard argument (see “A Caution”) against the Bible’s homosexual prohibitions is that the Bible’s writers (particularly Paul) had no knowledge of “monogamous, consenual, loving gay relationships”. Yet, the Jesus MCC church asserts that the alleged relationship between Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David were just that.
Secondly, the MCC believes that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. Besides having minds which rarely see beyond sexual imagery, the gay christian movement perjures itself repeatedly.
We posit again the implausibility, if not complete impossibility of such a sexual relationship primarily because under Levitical law homosexuality was condemned with punishment of death. David did violate the anti-adultery law with Bathsheba and was severely punished by God himself. Even the first child of the relationship died as a consequence of the sin. Would God have simply overlooked simular homosexual adultery by David? The insistence of a sexual connection between the two godly men, despite evidence to the contrary, brings to light the Bible’s assessment of the true character of such individuals:
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in their works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient and disqualified for every good work (Titus 1:15-16).
The apostle Paul’s harsh, –but nonetheless inspired– words paint a vivid portrayal of today’s gay christian movement. The major thought is that one cannot claim to be a disciple of Christ and practice or support [homo]sexual immorality. Furthermore to marry such abomination to the name of Christ reflects a reprobate ideology completely devoid of true Christian virtue. As it is written “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from inquity (2 Tim 2:19).
Finally, Jesus MCC magically makes the ventriloquist Jesus say that he “affirmed a gay couple” in the Bible. In the synoptic referenced, no “gay couple” existed, therefore this is a write-in interpretation. Not only did the centurion not present himself to Jesus as “coupled”, it is spiritual theft to automatically assume that healing equates to affirmation of one’s lifestyle. This is a simple, yet profound encounter of faith causing Jesus to “marvel.” The servant was sick, Jesus healed him and affirmed the man’s faith.
“Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Isreal” Matthew 8:10
But homosexual religionists ignore this and willfully morph a story of faith into a story of sex.
Dr. Rob Gagnon, in his exhaustive critique of this rather baseless claim, offers multiple, solid reasons why Jesus could not have affirmed any variation of homosexual coupling.