GAY TRUTH

When pro-family people fight back hard and tell the truth fearlessly, they can derail the well-funded LGBT legislative agenda. We’ve shown that over and over again. This was one of those times. A frightening bill that would allow children as young as 12 years old to “decide” they need psychiatric therapy – without their parents’ knowledge or consent – was stopped in the Colorado Senate on Monday, May 1. The 3-2 vote by a Senate committee came after strong testimony at the public hearing by Colorado MassResistance and other pro-family activists against a torrent of emotional pleas by the bill’s proponents. The bill,  HB17-1320,  had passed in the Colorado House of Representatives the previous week. Had it made it through the Senate committee, it would have gone to the Senate floor for a full vote. A nightmare for families As we recently reported , the bill would have allowed LGBT-allied “therapists” in school-based clinics to push vulnerable children to affirm an

In regard to Genesis 19 , homosexual revisionist interpreters adopt the view that the destruction of Sodom was due to the city’s inhospitality, the violence of the people toward the two visitors sent from God. The cause of destruction was not general wickedness, homosexual rape, or homosexual lust. Homosexual relations became the interpretation as a result of myths popularized in the early Christian church , Boswell claims.  Rather, Genesis 19 condemns inhospitality to strangers or general violence or is an allegory “only tangentially related to sexuality.” He argues that his view is that which modern scholarship increasingly favors, mainly as a result of the influence of Bailey’s work. The men of Sodom merely wanted to “know” the strangers received by Lot, to inspect their passports, as it were. The Terms of the Text At issue is the translation of the Hebrew word yādaʿ, commonly meaning “to know.” In the New International Version text for Genesis 19:5 and 8, the words of

Justification of homosexuality from the Bible must take into account the record of Creation in Genesis 1–2. Such revisionist interpreters as Boswell have not overlooked this matter. They so interpret these passages that homosexuality escapes condemnation. The assumption that the record of Creation and the Old Testament emphasis on marriage show tacit rejection of one-gender sexual relationships is “insupportable in a modern context,” asserts Boswell. “It does not seem to have occurred to early Christians.” Indeed, “intense love relations between persons of the same gender figure prominently in the Old Testament.” Boswell cites Saul and David , David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi . Boswell does not argue that these relationships were sexual. He suggests as much, however, by observing that literature of the Middle Ages sometimes represented these relationships as erotic. He believes that Genesis employs symbols and myths “to explain all its fundamental truths.” He observes that the

The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament . Homosexual Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality.  For example, Boswell ’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.” Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior . The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens , “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the b

THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY felt an explosion quite unlike that which shook Sodom, an eruption of reinterpretation of Scripture regarding gay and lesbian sexuality. The outing of gay priests and homosexual pastors seeking to justify their existence.  To varying degrees, these homosexual groups have stated the traditional view of key texts were wrong and in error. The old interpretations were replaced by three approaches: 1. References to homosexuality do not occur in passages where they traditionally have been seen (Gen. 19:1–8; Judg. 19:16–30; Ezek. 16:44–50; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–10; 2 Peter 2:6–8; and Jude 6–8). Identification of homosexuality in these passages is improper interpretation of Scripture. 2. Homosexuality is in the context of certain passages, but these texts concern Israel ’s special ritual or sacred relationship to God (e.g., Levit. 18:22; 20:13). They are irrelevant to the Christian. 3. Whatever references to homosexuality are

EVERY PERSON COMES TO THE matter of homosexuality with an established opinion, which has been shaped by a worldview. By worldview I mean a person’s concept of self, the world, and everything else. Every worldview encompasses what one views as real, the nature of truth, how we come to know what is true, and how we define what is “good” in an ethical sense. One’s worldview determines whether homosexuality is perceived as right or wrong. My own worldview is founded upon my confidence in the existence of a creating and governing God . This God has spoken or communicated both in general revelation through the created order and in the special revelations of Scripture and His Son, Jesus Christ . General revelation includes the complexity of the design and creation of the human body, the awareness of the spiritual self and conscience, and the unfolding of a plan that is shown through history. Reality encompasses both seen and unseen dimensions, the earthly and the heavenly. Jesus Christ em

WESTERN CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN undergoing as dramatic a shift in its ways of thinking and living as at any point in history. Many describe this turned corner as the rise of postmodernism, which is replacing modernism as the contemporary worldview. That new standards of public morality, ethics, and law have been advanced is not surprising, given the downward spiral of appreciation for any outward role for religion in life. At least from the standpoint of culture and law, our society no longer tolerates public endorsement of Christianity; rather, the only acceptable public positions are distrust of, or outright antagonism toward, religion in general and Christianity in particular. Ethical issues that have become matters of public morality—such as abortion, state lotteries, euthanasia, and homosexuality—have become storm-centers of debate. Until recently, homosexuality referred to disgusting practices that brought shame and were confined behind closed doors. This is no longer the case