Answering the gcm's top lies

We promised to share sound biblical responses to the top 15 lies told by the gay christian movement in 2008. Im not sure if they will create new lies for 2009, but if they do rest assured the Bible has the truth standing at the ready.

1. There are homosexual couples in the bible.

There are two points to be made about homosexual couples in the bible. One, there may have well been homosexual couples in the bible, but there is no approval of those relationships. Everything in the bible is true, but not everything is truth. There are many things within the scriptures which are noted but not approved. Satan, incest, lying, murder exists but none of us would say that because it is found in scripture, then it is somehow justified behavior. Secondly, the individuals cited as proof of homosexual couples are not in fact homosexual couples. There exists nothing in the passages portraying Jonathan and David’s relationship as a homosexual one. Titus 1:15 says everything is clean to those who are clean, but nothing is clean to those who are corrupt and unbelieving. Indeed, their very way of thinking and their consciences have been corrupted.

2. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

To say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in scripture is a technical half-truth, and anything which is not fully truth becomes a lie. In Matthew 19: when Jesus was asked about divorce, the answer he gave condemned all sexual activity outside the male-female marriage convenant.  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 to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? No Christian should ever argue that just because Jesus did not specifically mention something in scripture then it is because he or we should approve of it. Jesus never mentioned smoking, child pornography or identity theft, but we know these behaviors are wrong.

3. God created homosexuals like he created heterosexuals.

Actually, God created us holy. Ephesians 1:4. According as hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:…” The bible tells us that God created man holy and sinless, but that because of disobedience, mankind passed on a sin gene spiritually that has infected every person that enters the world. Whether one is hetero or homo sexual is a moot issue. Heterosexual sinners as well as homosexual sinners will end up in the lake of fire. But the statement is still false. Homosexuality is not a created sexual expression equal to heterosexuality. While there are expressions of heterosexuality which are sinful, heterosexuality is not intrinsically sinful. Homosexuality carries an abomination rating, not so much because of the sexual act, but because unlike any other sin, it is a direct attack on the nature of God as Creator. Reference Romans 1 (homosexuality is anti-nature spiritually, emotionally, sexually and relationally).

4. Jesus loves, accepts and includes everyone.

Yes, Jesus loves accepts and includes every sinner but only as sinners seeking regeneration through repentance. All sinners are invited to come, but once they do come to Christ, according to Matthew 11:28, Christ expects them to “exchange” the heavy burden of sin for his yoke. In this case, homosexuality is that heavy burden of sin. Once a sinner has accepted Jesus as Saviour, he must also make him LORD. If he is truly LORD, then his true servants will obey all of his commandments.  Thus, the statement is a technical half-truth which intentionally conceals the most important aspect of the inclusive welcome of Christ. He welcomes all to come as they are and accept his standards of living while rejecting their own.

5. The Apostle Paul did not know of any loving same sex couples.

The assumption is that not personally knowing someone renders one (Paul) incapable addressing a situation. Its not necessary or required to know anyone personally to judge whether or not someone’s actions are sinful. That is why we have the sciptures, lest we opinionate on sin. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul said it was reported to him that a man was in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife. Based on this report, Paul commanded that the man be put out of the fellowship until he repented. The problem with judgment based solely on relationship knowledge is that a tendency exists to let our personal feelings for an individual prevent us from seeing sin for what it really is. Not only is this statement false in its intent, its a factual lie. Paul was an extremely educated man who was widely traveled. To suggest he didnt know any homosexual couples —“loving” or not— is to minimize his profound and expansive life experiences.

6. Christians are not required to live by Old Testament laws.

Answer: The bible, particularly the Old Testament has 3 types of laws: Ritual, moral and civil. Sometimes these three overlap. While all of the categories of known law reflect the nature of God and contain valuable lessons for all, not all are universally applicable. This is why 2 Tim 2:15 calls on us to “rightly divide” the Word so that we have proper application. Ritual laws applied only to the Jews, while civil laws applied to all who were under Jewish authority. However, moral laws(which covered sexual conduct) are timeless and universal. Jesus intentionally broke ritual laws (Matt 7:2) and when the situation required, he broke civil laws. But there exists no evidence Jesus broke moral laws. Nor is there any evidence he sanctioned or encouraged anyone else to do so.

7. The Bible was only talking about temple prostitutes, not loving couples.

God never condemned homosexuality on condition of consensuality. He condemned the act. Therefore, regardless of what context that act occured in, it is condemned. Time and culture do not affect God’s moral laws. For example murder is just as wrong today as it was when Cain murdered Abel. Sexual expression is no different. If God has condemned a sexual act, then his word remains the same no matter who is involes or why they are doing it.

8. God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality but because of inhospitality.

It would be much more truthful to say that homosexuality wasn’t the only sin which caused Sodom’s destruction. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, God says there were multiple reasons Sodom was destroyed. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it. The word “abominations” in this passage refers to the sexual perversion of sodom.

9. The eunuchs Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19 are the same as today’s gay men.

All eunuchs in the bible were men, so the statement fails to justify lesbianism. In fact, eunuchs were men who were incapable of having sex. Every eunuch mentioned, from the eunuchs which threw the wicked queen Jezebel to her death to the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Philip the evangelist, were righteous.

10. The bible has been used to beat up and subjugate blacks and women, now its being used to bash gays.

Yes, the bible has been misused to mislead people, but that doesnt make the bible wrong it makes the people who misused it wrong. The bible is also being misused by people who claim that God is okay with homosexuality when it says just the opposite. Yes, the bible has been misused against women and against people of color but this is no reason to continue misusing it by encouraging people to live in sexual rebellion and still claim to be followers of Christ.

11. Homosexuality is a gift from God just like heterosexuality.

First, there is zero scriptural basis for the claim that homosexuality is a gift from God. This claim is so outrageously false, I feel I must respond with raw truth. Romans 1:26-27 clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is not a matter of a person simply choosing to act on their desires. Conventional “wisdom” says that gays are born with the same sex attractions which at some point naturally progress into behavior. But a careful reading of the text shows homosexuality is not a progression from orientation to behavior, but a digression into death set in motion by God himself. Homosexual behavior is the result of a person refusing to reject their ungodly desires despite the clear word from the Lord concerning it. If we rightly divide Romans 1, homosexuality is not a gift but rather a payment for rejecting Gods truth. Romans 1 even teaches that such people fall so deep in deception that they exchange the truth for a lie. Clearly, the fruit of this lie to call a punishment from God a gift. The payment for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. Romans 6:23.

12. Gay people are the new gentiles of the church.

Acts 15 gives us a very clear picuture of the first century gentiles who came to salvation. And it tells us how the apostles dealt with controversies which arose because of them. The major dispute arose from some Jews’ attempt to force new gentile converts to be circumcised as a prequisite for salvation and consequently the apostles met in Jerusalem to resolve the matter. The outcome of that historic meeting set forth two clear standards for the gentiles. (1) they were to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality and (2) they were to abstain from idolatry, blood and strangled foods. If they did this, the Apostlic council said, they would do well. Now, if the Apostles commanded the gentiles to abstain from all forms sexual immorality, how is it possible that gay christians are the new gentiles?

13. The church is lagging behind science and will be on the wrong side of history.

God’s Word was established before science was ever thought of. Ps 90 FRom everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent. Has he not said it, will he not perform it? Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fade but the word of the Lord shall stand forever. Both science and scientists have been proven wrong before, but God’s word is true 100% of the time.

14. Homosexuals do not need to repent, be saved, delivered from or changed from their natural sexual orientation.

The fundamental problem with this position is that it changes the basic definition of sin. This is dangerous to the church because if we can willfully change definitions of certain behaviors, then we alter what people understand the consequences of that behavior to be. For instance, if our government were to make rape legal, there would be no negative consequences for the rapist legally. Likewise if the definition of what is or is not sin, especially when there’s a clear definition in scripture, it will deceive people and consequently lead to spiritual death.

15. Without gays in the church writing and singing the music, the church wouldnt have anyone to depend on.

Romans 11:29 teaches that gifts and calling are irrevocable. In other words, they are not subject to recall by God. And although God does indeed give gifts without regard to a person’s spiritual status, gifts and callings are never an accurate indicator of relationship with Christ. Without a relationship, Christ will tell such people to “depart for I never knew you” Thats sad and tragic to spend your life in church in a relationship with the gift but not the giver of the gift.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Answering the gcm's top lies

  1. I really appreciate the listing; they are dead-on. Honestly, some of them are almost humorous to me (number 15 especially is hilarious). I think that’s because although I hear these arguments all the time–it’s difficult to put my finger on what people are essentially saying.
    Usually, these arguments are cloaked in so much half-truth and deftly arranged rhetoric, the ridiculousness of some of these contentions are not as obvious. But when you see it for what it’s really worth, these arguements appear as complete nonsense to the true bible-believing, born-again christian.

    But now it’s in black and white…and it certainly will help me sift through some of the comments and arguments raised by this movement in the future.

  2. Your statement that “eunuchs were men who were incapable of having sex” is untrue. In Bible times, “born eunuchs” were anatomically whole but were unable or unwilling to have sex with women. They were either not interested in sex or were attracted to other men. Many of the 47 Biblical references to born or natural eunuchs (sometimes translated as “officer” or “chamberlain”) probably include men attracted to other men.

    The “Born Eunuchs” site, (http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/contents.htm) compiled by Faris Malik, has a very detailed look at eunuchs in the ancient world (quoting many sources) and claims that “born eunuchs” were gay men.

  3. Raycol, you (and Faris Malik) are superimposing a sexual aspect on biblical eunuchs which is based on your own desire to justify homosexual activity. Adding the word “unwilling” is colors the scenario with an ungodly intent. Its telling because you say they were “probably” attracted to other men. Why arent you sure? Where’s the irrefutable evidence IN THE BIBLE where eunuchs were sexually attracted to other men? Where is the evidence IN THE BIBLE where any of the 47 references mentioning eunuchs state those eunuchs were sexually involved with other biological males?

    Present that evidence from the Bible and you will have a credible argument.

    The site you noted has a prohomosexual slanted agenda. Its not credible because it doesnt even attempt to hold true to biblical text.

    Sadly, this is just another elaborate trick of the gay christian movement.

  4. Uh! Pastor Foster. This was taken directly from the site RayCol suggested. You might want to pray before you read this direct quote from the website provided.

    “When Isaac’s servant went to find a wife for him, he predicted that when an ‘almah came to fetch water from the well,11 and responded in a particular way to his request for water, she would be the woman for Isaac to marry. The woman who fulfilled his prediction was Rebekkah, who may have seemed tomboyish. In a patriarchal culture in which men have rights over their wives, a lesbian might be the ideal wife — the husband knows she won’t go chasing other men!

    The last, and perhaps most significant occurrence of ‘almah in the Hebrew scriptures, is in Isaiah 7:14:

    Behold, an ‘almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    Thus it is quite possible that the Messiah was to be born, not of a virgin as the King James version translates it, but of a lesbian — a woman who is not turned on by sex with men. In fact the Qur’an also seems to indicates that Mary was not an ordinary female. It says that Mary’s mother declared at her birth: “Behold, I have brought it forth a female — and Allah knew best what she brought forth — and the male is not like the female.” To ancient cultural thinking, only men had the heat necessary to give form to semen and create a child. The fact that Mary was blessed with a child without the contribution of a man, may have in itself made her seem in some way “male.”

    Kyle

  5. Kyle, I expected as much. Thanks for posting this it only proves my case against this mental insanity. I hope everyone reads this and sees that we are not making this stuff up. These people have crossed over into a twilight zone and only God can bring them out of it.

    Oh btw…so good to have you back!!

  6. You are so right on again gcmwatch! After reading Kyle’s statement (and fighting back the tears from laughter) I see better the extent this movement is going through trying to negate the Word of God. I’ve heard most of this but the birth of Mary is something new for me. I’ll make sure and spread the word… Thank you for allowing this post to stand as I would probably have deleted it. I noticed you didn’t get an answer regarding Biblical evidence of these theories. He actually quoted the quran! Unbelievable.

  7. GiG, words escape me to describe the utter insanity going on at Faris Malik’s site. Yes, I let it stand because it is a shocking example of what I have been so diligently exposing on this blog. This could only come out of the mouths of demons.

    These are the people who are telling-demanding the church include them in leadership!!! Allowing them in gives authority to demons in the house of God. What madness!

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter days some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. 1 Timothy 4:1

  8. There appear to be many that do not fear the words of Christ.
    Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven!
    By our words we are justified and by our words we are condemned.
    Some who seek to justify abomination would be better off seeking to be obedient unto the Lord!
    Maybe then he would open their eyes.
    Frank

  9. Malik is even a heretic within the false religion of Islam. Not only is he a homosexual, which is not approved, but their precious Quran noted 600 years ago in the very words of the lunatic Prophet Muhammad, that Jesus was born of a Virgin. Talk about dazed, confused and grasping at straws.

  10. I agree with the statements from these questions. The Bible is very clear on Gods standards for Sin including homosexuality. There are those who fail and refuse to believe that God is not ok with their homosexual lifestyle and will fight it until they die. I pray for all people but mostly for those who are struggling with homosexuality, who knows that the bible is right and that homosexuality is a sin but still struggle with those feelings. Just like the man that is struggling with Drugs or fornication with women. We all need to pray for each other in order to stay strong and fight off what ever tempts us. Just becasue you are saved and have relationship with the lord doesn’t mean you don’t struggle the the trials of life!

  11. Wow, where to start…

    The idea that “abominations” in refers to homosexuality is pure speculation. The Bible calls many things “abominations,” including eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11:10) But I don’t see any web sites attacking the “Shellfish Agenda” or groups protesting seafood restaurants. If you try to use the argument in Item #6 that it’s OK to ignore some of the Old Testament but not others, you are on indefensible ground. Unless you can show me where Jesus says ignore Leviticus 11:10, but not 20:13, you have moved beyond supposition and into presumption.

    You are presuming to know God’s will beyond what is explicitly laid out in the Bible. I shouldn’t have to tell you that presumption is a sin. In fact, Satan tempted Jesus to this sin when he said “If you are the Son of God…throw yourself down from here” after Jesus’ forty days in the desert, which we honor now during Lent.

    Finally, the men of Sodom–ALL THE MEN of Sodom–came to Lot’s house and commanded Lot to produce the angels so “that we may know them.” (Genesis 19:5) Even in our current “depraved end-times,” only about 3-6% of the population is homosexual. It seems highly unlikely that every single man in Sodom wanted to rape the guests. It is much more likely that they wanted to know who these men were. Lot was the nephew of the extremely powerful patriarch Abraham. It was custom at that time that visitors to a city would be introduced to the Powers That Be. For Lot to receive strangers in the dark of night was suspicious. However, the Sodomites moblike treatment of Lot’s guest was again–you guessed it–“inhospitable.”

    Homosexuals can read the Bible, too.

  12. The shrimp / shellfish argument is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.

    Here’s the short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.

  13. Sorry, I read your “shellfish” rebuttal, but I think it’s logically flawed. I stand by my original accusation that fundamentalists pick and choose from the Bible and follow only what is convenient to them.

Comments are closed.