THE GAY CHARADE

Most readers will probably be familiar with the old, but popular, game of “charades,” where one person will act out a word or phrase (without speaking) and the others try to guess what that word or phrase is.  It is a game about acting.  Most of us enjoy some form of acting now and then.  But sometimes in real life people will fool us by acting one way, but their actions are hiding what’s really going on.  Their lives are simply a charade - an act or pretense.

We believe that such is often the case in the life of the gay person.  The gay crowd will often portray themselves as enjoyable, well-adjusted, happy and fun-loving people, often the life of the party.  According to them, the future of the homosexual lifestyle is bright.  But Jason Hill, author and Professor of Philosphy at De Paul University in Chicago, portrays gay life in a different light.  Hill, himself gay, is an intelligent and observant man who has written an article that is brutally honest about certain problems in the gay lifestyle.  His rebuke begins with the title of the article:  “Loveless, Narcissistic Sex Addicts:  A Gay Man Critiques His Community.”  See the article here:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/16/loveless-narcissistic-sex-addicts-a-gay-man-critiques-his-community/

Even though Hill believes that homosexuality is not immoral, he states:

“I also believe marriage between two men in our contemporary culture is a colossal waste of time, a hopeless undertaking doomed for failure, and, fundamentally, a naive endeavor profoundly at odds with the hypersexual, broken, and ethically bankrupt ethos [guiding beliefs] and nature of gay male culture.”

Since Hill himself is gay, why would he say this if it weren’t true?  He seems harsh when he says that the gay male culture is “ethically bankrupt.”  In the article, he asserts that “most gay men are sexual addicts,” and that “promiscuous sex and drug use… are an omnipresent force in every register, crook, and cranny of the gay world.”  Hill continues:

“If civilization were left exclusively in the hands of gay men and heterosexuals were eliminated from the earth, it is not only obvious that the species would die off – that is putatively obvious.  What is less obvious is this: we would live in a state of moral ferality”  (Emphasis his) - [“ferality” means “relating to, or resembling a wild beast.”]  Compare 2 Peter 2:12 with his statement.

These are not very flattering words for a gay man to use about his own community.  But even further, he calls the gay culture “nihilistic” (a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless).

No wonder that, according to Hill, there is so much “disproportionate drug use, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and suicides” within this gay culture.  He describes today’s gay culture as an “age of loneliness” where they are trying to “fulfill an obvious emptiness at the epicenter of such individuals’ souls.”  Does this sound like happy, well-adjusted people?

Hill is brutally honest about the state of his community.  He recognizes the charade.  But why he still remains a gay man is a mystery after revealing all these things.  According to his own assessment of his community, there seems to be no happy ending for gays.  Hopefully, the “crossroads” mentioned by Jason Hill will cause him to look to God to escape this dead-end lifestyle and the heartache it brings.  The Corinthian church, in the time of the apostle Paul, had members who had previously been involved in wicked and vile sins (including fornication, idolatry, adultery, drunkeness and homosexuality), but Paul said, “…and such WERE some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  You see, Jesus Christ had changed their lives and set them free. They were no longer trapped in these wicked and self-destructive lifestyles.

By the way, we ran across this interesting quote from a gay person:

“Marching in the gay pride Parade is less exciting now that my parents support my sexual orientation.”

This is very telling.  Apparently, this person’s core reason for marching in the gay pride parade was to rebel against his / her parents in the first place.  But their excitement had deflated now that the parents had approved.  Perhaps the parade seemed to ring hollow now.  There was no more resistance or reason to rebel now.

 

And rebellion it is.  A person is not born gay.  If he were, God would have never called homosexuality a sin.  A person’s beliefs, opinions, sexual orientation, and feelings are shaped by his experiences.  He is not born with sexual desires – that comes at puberty, not earlier, and it is established over time.

But throughout Scripture, homosexuality is clearly condemned, Old Testament and New, alike (Genesis 18:20; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13;  Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Jude 7, etc.).  When the Pharisees came and questioned Jesus about divorce, He settled the issue by taking them back to God’s pattern at the beginning and showed them His original plan for marriage in Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:3-6).  This also answers the homosexual issue, since this pattern clearly shows that God’s intention is for one MAN and one WOMAN to be united in marriage.  Homosexuality has no place in God’s will, except that it be punished.

All sin is evil, but Scripture seems to indicate that homosexuality (or society’s acceptance of it) may very well be the “last straw” in a downward spiral of that society. (Genesis 18:20; 19:13; Isaiah 3:9; Romans 1:18-27)  There comes a time when God will no longer tolerate certain evils in society.

The conclusion is that no one has to be homosexual.  No one has to live the charade.  If you are one of those who are seemingly trapped in this lifestyle, there is only one way out… you must trust in the person of Jesus Christ and in His work on the cross, where He paid the penalty for every single sin.  He will change your heart and make you free indeed (John 8:32).

See also this article for some interesting statistics on the children of gay parents:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/my-2-dads-childhood-not-so-happy-and-gay/#!

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?

Ok, so you’re an atheist.  You don’t believe in the existence of God, and you don’t see how anyone else could possibly believe in Him.  Or maybe, you’re an agnostic and you believe that there could possibly be a God or gods, but you don’t see enough evidence to justify that belief.  You’re thinking, “If there really is a God, then why does it look like He is hiding from us?”  Either way, you’re a rational thinker and you need hardcore evidence before believing in any “old man in the sky” fairy tales, right?

But the question has to be asked:  What kind of evidence would you require?  What exactly would it take to convince you of the existence of God?  Would you only be satisfied with purely scientific evidence?

But appealing to science brings up another issue:  Is science equipped to truly demonstrate God in a laboratory?  How would that work?  Look, we all know that you can’t measure the weight of something with a tape measure.  And we all know that you can’t calculate distance with an electrical volt meter, nor can you measure pressure with a microscope.  In other words, to measure or test something, you must use the correct tools for the job.  But using science to directly measure something metaphysical or spiritual (like God) is absurd.  Scientific methods are not equipped to directly determine the qualities or existence of God.  You can’t find Him in a test tube or see Him through a telescope.

 

Yet, atheists and other skeptics will often demand that God (if He does indeed exist) should make Himself visible so all can believe in Him… is that too much to ask?  He should “show Himself,” or maybe perform some great miracle, like giant writing in the sky for all to see.  You know, seeing is believing, right?  Yet no one has ever seen gravity, but no one goes around demanding that gravity needs to become visible before we can believe in it, do they?  By that logic, someone could also say that since your mind is not directly visible, it must not exist!  Physical visibility is not always necessary to prove existence.  Some things we don’t directly see, e.g., electricity, force, heat, pressure, energy, etc., but we can see their effects.  This is also true of God… although He is invisible, we can see His handiwork (Psalm 8:1; 19:1-2), His creation (Romans 1:18-20), and His affecting of our lives in many ways (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  But we don’t need to directly see Him or directly hear His audible voice to know He’s there.  We can find Him through indirect evidence.

We find an interesting (and relevant) Bible story in the book of Luke, where Jesus tells us about two men who die, ending up in two vastly different places - the rich man in agony, and the poor man in bliss (Luke 16:19-31).  The rich man, after realizing the hopelessness of his eternal mistake, cries out for Abraham to send Lazarus (the poor man) back from the dead to testify of this horrible place to his still-living family, so that they don’t end up there with him.  But it is important to note that Abraham tells the rich man that if his brothers will not believe Moses and the prophets (Scripture), then they will not believe someone who comes back from the dead (v. 31).  Notice that Jesus, through this story, considered the testimony of Scripture as far more reliable than the witness of the dead coming back to testify!  The rich man wanted extreme evidence for his family to see.  But no one can demand the luxury of such extreme evidence.  Scripture is sufficient.

But the problem with skeptics, though, is that it seems that they are always able to “explain away” any evidence produced.  Medical miracles are simply written off as a hoax, and even if God were to visibly appear, they would claim that it was just an illusion or hallucination, anyway.

They ask for visible proof of God; but God already did show Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ (God becoming flesh), who did many, many miracles and even rose from the dead, yet many still didn’t believe!  But when skeptics demand evidence, what they are really asking is, “Why doesn’t He reveal Himself the way I want Him to?”  But God is not obligated to reveal Himself to skeptics, or to anyone, especially to someone who is not repentant nor willing to serve Him.  No one is promised a dramatic “Damascus Road” experience (Acts 9:1-9).

And God is not asking anyone to use “blind faith,” but faith resting on reliable historical evidence.  It pleases Him when we believe what He says – like parents who desire for their children to trust them without having to prove or explain everything to them – it’s about a relationship.  God wants us to learn to trust Him without having to give us every single detail, because we may not be ready for some details yet.

It is true that believers will often be biased, and they are not always willing to consider all the evidence concerning science.  But extreme bias can also be found in atheist circles.  The esteemed Professor Richard Lewontin (atheist geneticist at Harvard) writes:

“We take the side of science IN SPITE OF the patent ABSURDITY of some of its constructs… IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a PRIOR commitment – A COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM.  It is NOT that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, ON THE CONTRARY, that we are forced by our A PRIORI ADHERENCE to MATERIAL causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce MATERIAL explanations, NO MATTER how counter-intuitive, NO MATTER how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an ABSOLUTE, for WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.” (Billions and Billions of Demons, Prof. Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, Volume 44 [Emphasis added])

In other words, for the atheist, the existence of God must be kept out of the equation at all costs, no matter what the evidence suggests.

But ultimately, the issue is not whether God exists or not.  The answer to that is built into every one of us, atheists included.  Deep down inside, we all know He’s there (Romans 1:18-20), though some will not admit it.  God, in different ways, makes Himself known to all of us.  But are we willing to reach out to Him and let Him change our lives?  Are we willing to trust Him and submit to Him?

God is not obligated to provide greater evidence.  It’s not that skeptics need more evidence, the problem is that they are not believing the evidence that exists already!

See these articles:

http://www.str.org/blog/challenge-response-god-can-t-be-scientifically-quantified#.V1t65CG_J0w

http://christianthinktank.com/adam01.html

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

WHAT JESUS IS NOT

There is an old saying that is often true:  “Familiarity breeds contempt.”  It simply means that when people become familiar with something, they tend to start losing their appreciation or respect for it and begin taking it for granted.  It becomes common.  Jesus alluded to this same principle when He said that a prophet is not without honor except in his own home town (Mark 6:4).

But today, not only is there a growing (and disturbing) loss of appreciation and loss of respect toward Jesus Himself in the world, this same lack of respect for Him is even in the church.  In the modern church’s fervent quest to use absolutely anything at all to attract the youth of today, many churches are resorting to the use of street language to make Jesus seem more common and mundane, perhaps more approachable.

    

Many in the church (including pastors) are trying to force Jesus into today’s common “street image” to bring Him down to our own level.  The intent is to present Him as more of a friend than a judgmental King.  You’ll hear some say that Jesus is their ‘‘homeboy.”  But would any sane person dare to address a judge, or a governor, or the president as “homeboy”?  Not likely.  So how much greater and more deserving of respect is Jesus Christ than any mere man?

Sorry people, but Jesus Christ is not your “homie,” your “best bud,” or your “pal.”  He sits on the throne at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.  He’s not your “BFF” or your “bro.”  He is grander than that.  He is holy.  His name is above all other names (Philippians 2:9), He is Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), and He is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25).  But the titles that even churches use of Him today are irreverent, cheesy, and worldly, at best… and crude and blasphemous, at worst.  By the use of these names His true nature is casually watered down and dishonored.

Using these kinds of worldly titles makes Him “just one of us.”  But don’t expect Him to greet you at the pearly gates with a high-five, like teammates in a locker room.  He’s not going to be “rappin’ with His homies” or “throwing signs” with you in Heaven. 

 

Why are we being so “intolerant” and making such a big deal of this?  Because the apostle John, one of the closest friends of Jesus, tells what happened when he saw Jesus in His glory:

“And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man…” (Revelation 1:17)

Think about that.  Let it sink in.  This is the same John who traveled, lived, and ate with Jesus every day for at least three years; but when he saw a vision of Him in His glorified form, he couldn’t speak, he couldn’t move, nor could he do anything else.  He was utterly stunned.  He was overwhelmed by His majesty.  John was never to view his friend, Jesus, in any “common” way again.  Yes, He is approachable, but we must be careful how we approach the King of kings.

So, is this “common,” “hipster,” “cool daddy-o” Jesus in the modern church another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4)?  It certainly is not the One we find in Scripture.

It’s acceptable to call Him your friend (John 15:14), but He is not your “homeboy.”  He is Jesus Christ, the one Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but He is not your “best bud,” or your “pal,” and He is not to be called “dude” or “J.C.”  He is the Creator of the universe, the First and the Last, but He is not your “boyfriend” (there is actually a “Christian” song titled, “Jesus is my boyfriend”).

 

If you think that you can address Him so flippantly when you meet Him face to face, you just may be shocked to find out that you DIDN’T know Him after all (Matthew 7:21-23), and that you’ve been serving the wrong “Jesus.”  God help the church to use discernment.

 

DO SUFFERING CHILDREN PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD?

Probably the most common objection, by far, against believing in God amongst atheists, skeptics, naturalists, and non-Christians is, “If there really is a God, then why is there so much suffering in the world?”

 

But the purpose of this article is not to specifically answer the question of why evil exists.  There are many great articles that address this topic elsewhere.  Here are links to a couple of them, one by author (and former atheist) Lee Strobel:

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/162215-lee-strobel-why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering.html

And one by pastor, author, and apologist Charlie H. Campbell:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/evil-and-suffering/181

But today, our focus is mainly on the argument that says:

Since evil is present in this world (especially the suffering of innocent little children) then God must not exist.

To elaborate, many atheists and skeptics will use this type of argument as an excuse for not believing in God, as stated earlier.  They’ll say, “Why is there senseless suffering, especially of innocent children, in this world?  It is inconsistent for a God who is both all-powerful and compassionate to allow such tragedy.  If He is able to stop it, why wouldn’t He?  Apparently, He really must not care.  If He really has the power to do it, then He is obligated; He MUST stop children from suffering to be consistent with what the Bible claims about Him (that He is compassionate), otherwise, He just cannot exist.”

 

But this is a false dilemma.  You can’t erase God’s existence or override His wisdom and timing with these emotional arguments.  And you can’t say that there is no God just because He does not act like you feel He should act. 

 

First, God is able to turn all bad things into something good (Romans 8:28).  Second, God never promised that anyone (even the innocent) would be immune from suffering in this life.  Third, simply having the ability to do something does not logically obligate Him to do that particular thing.  If He wanted, God could make every person on the planet very, very rich.  But just because He can doesn’t mean that it would be wise to do so.

Look, if there is indeed a biblical God (and there is), then by definition:

·      He created us.

·      He is sovereign and in authority.

·      He is far stronger and wiser than we are.

·      The right to establish the rules belongs to Him, and Him alone.

·      We don’t have the right to tell Him what to do or how to run this world.

·      Since we are finite / limited, we should expect that He would do some things that we don’t understand.

These are simply things that define who the Christian God is, but atheists are trying to re-define Him by saying that, if He would exist, He should be subject to man’s demands. 

Real Concern for the Children?

It seems that the only time that atheists become vocal about suffering children is when someone mentions God.  Are they really as concerned as they say they are, or are they just using the children to attack the concept of God?  But if there is no biblical God to blame, then who will the atheist blame for the suffering children?  Would he be so quick to condemn his own “god” of evolution?  Would he DEMAND that science immediately fix the problem of suffering, as he would demand of the Christian God?  Or would he just say, “Oh, well, suffering is just part of life”?

And, instead of blaming God, why not blame the corrupt politicians who often cause the famine and devastation of countries and people, primarily because of mismanagement and / or stealing of funds that were sent to relieve the hunger and sickness?

Sawing off the Branch You’re Sitting on…

 

Atheists will also say that if God is compassionate, then why does He not remove evil completely?  Actually, He WILL do it.  But it’ll be in His timing and on His terms.  And again, He is under no obligation to erase suffering and evil when we want it done.  Man is often impatient and we don’t see the things that are being done “behind the scenes” by God.  But, like any good parent, God just wants us to trust Him. (Genesis 18:25)

But do we really want God to put an end to all suffering?  If so, then He must put an end to its cause, as well.  But remember, every one of us has, to some extent, contributed to the cause of someone’s suffering!  So, God would have to destroy us all if we insist on getting rid of suffering (and whatever causes it).  So, be careful what you ask for.

In the Beginning

Atheists may ask, “But if God exists, why didn’t He merely create a world where suffering and tragedy don’t exist in the first place?”  Actually, the fact is that He did just that in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:31)! 

 

God didn’t create evil.  What He created was perfect.  But in order for love to be genuine and freely given (He didn’t want robots), He gave man and the angels free will.  They had the ability to freely choose either good or evil.  And this free will was abused by both angels and men, twisting goodness into evil, through their sin and disobedience.  In a nutshell, this is why there is suffering in our world, even today. 

An Argument that Backfires

We all agree that evil exists in this world, but you know, the very fact that we designate something as “evil” is strong evidence FOR the existence of God!  Though many may not realize it, calling something good or evil is an appeal to an objective (or absolute) standard of morality.  It points to a standard that is transcendent (above and beyond the limits of man and this world).  In atheism, “good” and “evil” can only be relative terms.   What is “right” for one atheist may be wrong for another atheist.  One atheist might consider a certain act wicked, while another thinks it is totally acceptable.  For the atheist, there are no moral absolutes, and without that absolute standard (God), the atheist cannot say with confidence that anything is actually “good” or “bad.” 

Conclusion

We believe that even if God decided to heal every single suffering child in the world, many atheists would be quick to attribute that miracle to something else, something other than God.  They would simply find another reason to continue to disbelieve in God’s existence.  Those same atheists may want to end the suffering of children, but what they want even more is to have reasons NOT to believe in God and be accountable to Him.

It is an unfortunate fact that we have suffering children in our world.  Sometimes the suffering may seem absolutely pointless, but rest assured that there is a God, and that He has morally sufficient reasons to allow this suffering, for the children’s sake, and for the sake of those directly affected.  Man’s ultimate purpose in this life is not mere “happiness,” but it is to know God intimately.  Only when we come to realize this does the “senseless suffering” make sense.  Eternal bliss awaits those innocent children, and anyone else who puts their trust in the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  That even includes the atheist.

In summary, the fact that children suffer on earth certainly does not prove that there is no God.