Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘sex demon’

Theodicy Dialogue With Pastor Matt Wrickman

Posted by Job on January 26, 2012

Matthew Wrickman, a pastor and blogger with whom I have corresponded in the past, wished to discuss How The Penn State University Child Molestation Case Demonstrates The Existence Of God and did so in a comment, which he reproduced as a post on his site (which I encourage you to patronize). The objections – er dialogue points – that he raised are good ones as always, and my interaction with them is as follows. Pastor Wrickman’s words are in blocked quote format, and mine follow. Thank you.

“ Interesting response. Most commentators for the last 200 years at least have used evil in the reverse sense as the greatest problem for the existence of God. The line of logic would be that Sandusky is evil. If God was really good, really powerful, and really existed then He would have intervened and stopped the action. He didn’t so either He is not really good, really powerful, or does not really exist. As a line of logic it seems rather convincing. I, of course, would argue (as you hinted at) that God has intervened through the person of Son. That the cross of Christ represents Christ’s solidarity with the victims of Sandusky, as well as, his offer of healing to both victim and victimizer. Mix that with classical free will theory and I feel that the question has been answered; perhaps not superbly but answered nonetheless.”

Alas, you are of the Remonstrants, I am of the Synod of Dort! (Actually I am Particular Baptist after the manner of Charles Spurgeon, William Carey and Paul Bunyan and you are not classical Arminian or Wesleyan as you to not believe that one can lose his salvation, but otherwise you get the picture.)

“You once stated that you enjoyed boiling down arguments to the logical extreme”

Well, my love of reductio ad absurdum was in my angry, immature phase. (In what many might consider to be an irony, it was becoming a “5 point Calvinist” – or again more accurately a Particular Baptist – that helped me get past my anger, which I ultimately discovered was truthfully coming from within and was directed inwardly also.) I now rarely employ this debate tactic, though I hear that it is a very good tool for computer scientists and mathematicians.

“and that is where pointing from evil to God fails. At it’s extreme it allows for no differentiation between evil and God.””

I agree with you to a point, as a multitude of false religions (as I understand them) have deities that are dualistic, amoral or even malevolent. But that extreme is precluded by the holy scriptures. Though I do dabble in classical and evidential apologetics from time to time – to the extent that I am able – for the most part I adhere to the presuppositional apologetics school of Cornelius Van Til and similar, which takes the truth and authority of the Bible to be a non-negotiable starting point and proceeds from there. (I further build on that school by presuming a basic “rule of faith”, or a normative interpretation of the Bible, belief in its inerrancy/inspiration/authority, and application of its doctrines to the church).

So, inasmuch as the Bible differentiates between evil and God, I presume this to be true also. My purpose for authoring the above piece was intended not to much to be an exercise in philosophy, ethics or similar, but for evangelism and encouragement. Thus, it presumes some degree of faith – and please recall that faith is not produced by man but is given by God – and is not intended for the purposes of debating the likes of Sam Harris, Charles Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens.

“One might state that if evil has a positive outcome such as pointing to God; then committing evil cannot be entirely wrong (as it creates some good outcome). Therefore committing an evil act cannot be considered wrong and cannot then be evil.”

What you speak of is outcome-based religion. The problem with such religions is that man, lacking perfect knowledge and morality, is incapable of properly evaluating outcomes. Only God can do so. What we perceive to be a “good” outcome according to our perspective might actually be evil according to God, and the converse is also true. Consider an example: a small leak in a dam. A person might make an improper repair to the leak that for a time stops the water from running, but makes the dam weaker, or at minimum ignores the root cause of the leak. Now though the fix is flawed, it might last a long time – during the duration of that person’s life. And for that time, that person will be considered to have done a great good in fixing the leak, and will go to his grave with such estimation.

But suppose that the dam ultimately breaks and catastrophically floods the town! Was this a good deed? No, because in the most extreme case, where the leak would have been at most a minor annoyance but remained, the fix made the dam weaker and caused it to suddenly burst where it would not have had the fix not been applied. In even the most favorable possible case, the fix caused everyone to BELIEVE that the problem was solved, and hindered them from seeking a real solution, or from evacuating the town if no solution was possible or practical.

Such is the result of false religion: it creates self-righteousness and blinds the sinner from his need for God. And false doctrines in Christianity can similar impede the spiritual growth of a Christian. So, the measure of “good acts” are not by their outcomes (“the ends justify the means”) or their intentions (“he meant well/his heart was in the right place”) but rather the fidelity of these acts to the commandments of Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Scriptures regardless of their apparent outcomes. God and His Word are the standard, not the outcome or our perception of it, and by the definition of God as determined by His special revelation to us in the Bible, fidelity to God and His Word cannot be evil.

That is why the people who obeyed the commandments of God to commit genocide and fratricide in the Old Testament were not evil, and those who committed what might have been considered good in sparing, say, a Canaanite baby out of what seemed to be mercy upon the innocent who posed no threat when when God commanded to utterly destroy all the Canaanites would have been evil. Where of course we would say that killing a Canaanite baby is evil, and sparing the baby and raising it up according to the Jewish religion would have been good according to our own understanding, we have to accept by faith God’s statements when He says that His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts, and obey God according to that same faith.

If we do otherwise, and obey God when it conforms to our own sense of good and evil and abandon God’s commandments when they contradict them, we are following our own religion and morality and not God’s, and we have made ourselves into gods in the place of God.

“On another level it also implicates God in evil; because it seems to make God a participant in the evil action. Therefore one might question the goodness of God.”

Well, the psalmists and prophets seemed to regularly question the goodness of God, no? Yet they remained faithful. It is not blind faith, but faith in God’s self-revelation to us through His Son. The role of the Holy Spirit is not to answer all of our questions, but to reassure us, comfort us and keep us in the faith despite them. Or to save us from our faithless condition despite them. The Bible declares oft that we cannot understand God and His ways, and that we are not to even try to. We are to merely – as the old hymn says – trust and obey Him.

But let it be said that God does certainly use evil to accomplish His ends. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose, and this includes evil things. And God most certainly does use evil events. When a sinner commits evil, the Holy Spirit convicts him of this evil in order to drive him to repentance unto salvation. When a Christian commits evil, the Holy Spirit convicts him of this evil in order to drive him to repentance unto restoration. The Holy Spirit does not cause this evil, but He certainly uses it.

But as touching God and evil actions: consider when God sent a lying spirit to the false prophets in order to provoke wicked king Ahab into going into battle so that Ahab could be slain as a punishment for his (Ahab’s) wickedness. Consider also when God made pharaoh ruler of Egypt and hardened his heart so that pharaoh would oppress the children of Israel mightily, as God wanted an occasion to judge the Egyptians for their wickedness, to save Israel and make them a nation, and to display evidence of His existence and power to the world. Consider when God used the wicked pagan Assyrian and Babylonian empires to judge Israel and Judah for their infidelity to the Sinai covenant (and this required allowing Assyria and Babylon to conquer other nations and otherwise rise to power). And consider when Jesus Christ chose the non-elect Judas Iscariot as one of His apostles so that Judas Iscariot could betray Him and otherwise fulfill the prophecies.

It is very fair to say that God participated in these evil actions, if you rely on the common human definition of participation. In the Bible, God does asserts His right to do evil, at least according to man’s perspective of evil (when God did so, He was condescending to the limited understanding capacity of man in that He allowed them to regard His actions as evil).

Just because we see something as evil does not make it evil. God is the standard, the Self-existing Self-defined one who is goodness and righteousness within Himself. Evil, then, is by definition that which is contrary to God, and God by definition cannot be contrary to Himself. Any other definition of evil makes man a judge of not only himself, but of God. This is something than an unbeliever – especially an atheist or rationalist – will never accept but that Christians are called to accept, believe and submit ourselves to through faith.

The unwillingness to accept the fact that God Himself is the definition of good and that evil is defined by its being in opposition to God is the source of so many of these logical games, tricks and constructions on the behalf of many apologists. This fact also solves the apparent problem of God telling one person to do one thing at one time and another person to do something else (i.e. when God commanded Ezekiel and Hosea to break the Mosaic law by eating bread defiled with excrement and marrying a cult prostitute): we are simply to believe that God can do so without Himself being contradictory.

“I prefer the Biblical account which simply claims that God is the good God who overcomes evil. He is the one that thwarts evil, and instead works good in the life of the believer where the evil one had sought to sow destruction. Evil, then, remains evil; and God remains good. It is not the evil action that points to God; but rather His action in turning away the evil and establishing his redemption in its wake. The redemption points to God.”

The problem with that is that it relies on an incomplete portion of the Holy Scriptures, excluding bad facts. Consider, well, the book of Job (which has been as much a source of fascination and meditation for me as I certainly hope the Gospel of Matthew has been for you)! Let’s face it: God delivered Job into the hands of Satan for Satan to do whatever he wished with Job and all that he had save taking Job’s life. And please recall: the Bible is clear that the calamities that came upon Job were not due to any sin that Job had committed. Job’s CHILDREN died, not because of any sin of Job or the children, and despite Job’s daily sacrificing for his children in case they sinned. (Of course, their deaths would have occurred due to their original sin, as did Job’s death, but let us focus on their untimely deaths, which was considered to be an evil occurrence in OT times and still is to this day.)

We have to come up with a theodicy that is faithful to the entirety of the Bible. Not only must we do this in order to be faithful to God through His Word, but this is also the only way to construct a theodicy that encompasses the range of the facts of life that we have to confront, such things as wars, plagues, horrific crimes, miscarriages, birth defects etc. God does overcome evil by eliminating all that which is contrary to Himself. Keep in mind: this process will not be completely finished until the eschaton, when this creation is destroyed by fire, the wicked are cast into eternal flame, and a new heaven and a new earth is created.

As to why God did not make the original creation after the same manner of the new heaven and new earth, we just have to accept that God did all things according to a manner that pleased Him. The idea that God was obligated to prevent the existence of evil in order to not Himself be evil is man’s thinking, not our own. And it is thinking that is centered on man and his own interests, as we accuse God for not acting to avoid our own misery and suffering. We want to be able to say that God is not good if the result of His original creation was humans – most of whom never encountered with the gospel of Jesus Christ to either accept or reject – being punished in the lake of fire for an eternity. As mentioned earlier, our duty is to accept these facts because they are how God revealed Himself and His actions in the Bible, and not to generate contrivances to avoid the fulness of God’s self-revelation and its implications. Make no mistake: unbelievers are fully aware of these things! Have you ever perused skepticsannotatedbible.org and similar counter-apologetics efforts? It is far better to directly confront these things in scripture, meditate on them, accept them through faith, and work them into our systematic theologies than to simply pretend that they do not exist, or to come up with human-centered (if not necessarily humanistic) evasions.

One last point if evil has some positive function in our world then the ultimate destruction of it would in essence be destroying it, and with it destroying an important way of knowing God. Yet our God promises to end evil once and for all. That is our hope that on a day in the hopefully not-too-distant future He will return to bring into completion or fullness the reality of His Kingdom that he established in His previous visit. The cross is the seal of payment, and the spirit is his down payment asserting His intentions to return. Evil will be no more and His people will be entirely free to serve Him in eternity. We will then celebrate His victory, not His battle.

There is a difference between saying that evil has an absolute positive function in the world, and merely stating that God uses evil to accomplish His purposes. However, even if God did so as you speak, it would be well within His right to terminate it. Does God still feed His people with manna? Of course, God did a great thing by feeding His people with manna. Does the fact that you no longer eat manna destroy an important way of knowing God? Does the fact that you are not a Jew living in Jerusalem under the Mosaic law destroy an important way of knowing God? God forbid! So, if God can discontinue good things, then how much more so can He discontinue evil that He uses for good purposes? We know God only by God’s revelation.

Whether God’s revelation consists of His use of evil to accomplish His goals or not, the knowledge of God is the same. Why? Because God – the one providing the revelation – is the same. Even if you were to say that it is not “the same”, inasmuch as those in Old Testament times did not have the same knowledge as do we in light of the cross and the current ministrations of the Holy Spirit, their knowledge of God based on the revelation that they had was nonetheless sufficient to suit God’s purposes and that is what counts. God is only bound by Himself to reveal to us what He chooses for us to know of Him. He is not bound by us to reveal to us what we desire to know of him.

Further, God reveals Himself to us through the way that He chooses, not the way that we desire. Part of the error of some in the Pentecostal movement that I was once in is their demand that God reveal Himself to us in these ways in the same way that He revealed Himself to the early church, and also to Old Testament Israel. God’s actions and revelations are according to His will, not our desires. And the nature and character of God’s revelation are suitable to fulfill our needs. Not our wants, but our needs. Keep in mind in Romans 1 when Paul states that even the order and nature of creation should have been enough of God’s self-disclosure to live righteously and thereby be saved, and therefore those who do not – including those who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ – are without excuse and therefore subject to condemnation on judgment day.

And of course we celebrate His battle. Are not the Psalms filled with the Jews’ praise of God’s battles on their behalf, physical and spiritual? Concerning Jesus Christ, do we not celebrate His trial in the desert, Gethsemane and the cross, and not merely the resurrection? Jesus Christ specifically instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper so that we would remember His passion. This knowledge of God that you speak of includes God’s battles for our behalf, because through these we know that God has both the power to save us and the love to forgive us. God’s destruction of Egypt and Israel’s other enemies is evidence of the former, and His restoration of the remnant after they broke His covenant is evidence of the latter. This is evidence of the very hope of which you speak!

Well, I am done! I thank this opportunity to dialogue with my old friend and brother in the faith. As always, I hope that I did not offend or mistreat you, and if I did, it was not my intent. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

The Three Step Salvation Plan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Advertisements

Posted in Bible, Christianity, devotional, evangelism, faith, grace, Jesus Christ, Theodicy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Coed College Dorm Rooms Demonstrate The Triumph Of The Homosexual Agenda In America

Posted by Job on May 4, 2008

See article One boy, one girl — one dorm room by clicking on link. In it, the writers and editors of the article do all they can to promote the notion that a healthy male and female in their teens can live together without even considering the notion of sexual intercourse. It would be one thing if they were promoting it as some virtue of personal restraint. But you will never hear them commend personal restraint as a virtue, because that would ruin the anti – Christ media’s position against abstinence education. Now I do not support abstinence education, because it is nothing but an attempt to use government schools to impose Christian morality and values – a universalist works based theology – on the population in the place of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The solution to the illegitimacy problem is not returning to “Leave It To Beaver Ozzie and Harriet traditional American values” – how many underclass families ever had the luxury of “homemaker” wives and mothers to begin with, even during the “ideal” 1950s? – that will not save anyone from the lake of fire and deliver them from evil spirits, but the gospel of Jesus Christ that will.

Nonetheless, the media and political advocates in their aggressive promotion and defense of all manners of sinfulness and the confusion that results, tells us that we should not have abstinence education because it is unrealistic to expect teenagers to do the impossible, which is refrain from sexual activity. In one surreal moment on Fox News, a feminist lawyer who owes her wealth and fame in large part to sexual harassment law claimed to be powerless to be able to educate her own son to delay sexual activity, so she stated that with her son – and with teenagers in general – the best route was to accommodate “the inevitable” by encouraging her son to engage in safe sex. (Please note that the standard line This was particularly chilling because feminists have for quite a time been proposing the notion that males will inevitably be sexually aggressive – unable to prevent themselves from committing crimes ranging from unwanted touching (sexual battery) to rape – because of evolutionary biology. It is generally regarded that this sort of Camille Paglia Andrea Dworkin Saray Blaffer Hrdy crowd promotes male homosexuality because they view homosexuals to be less likely inclined to rape females than heterosexuals. So how can coeducational dorms not result in the male inevitably engaging in unwanted sexual activity towards the female, ranging from undesired looks at her (which that same Fox News feminist lawyer/pundit calls sexual harassment, and I agree with her) to unwanted touching (sexual battery) to violent rape? 

Make no mistake, homosexual rights activism also plays a role. It did not take public health researchers long at all to attribute the sky high infection rates of homosexual men to – among other things – extreme promiscuity within this group. Being refrained from advocating not only the Biblical mindset that homosexual behavior is sinful, but also the medical/biological truth that homosexual behavior is inherently unnatural and harmful, the best line of rhetoric that the public health advocates could do in order to slow the spread of AIDS among this population was to advocate monogamy. Unsurprisingly, homosexual activists had no interest in this approach whatsoever. Borrowing heavily from feminist theories on sexuality that attacked marriage, homosexuals called the demands that they be monogamous “heterosexism”; that it was “homophobia.” So, the idea that a homosexual should be expected to not only refrain from sexual activity altogether but even limit it to one partner even to preserve his own life and the life of his sex partners was portrayed as oppressive. Again, keep in mind that they had a vast amount of feminist work to mine and co – opt as their own: one of the primary reasons for feminist opposition to welfare reform in the 1990s was a notion that it was an attack on black female independent sexuality by cutting off financial support for the lifestyle in order to force black females into marriage. White conservative men were acting against black female sexual independence not out of a legitimate concern for the black family structure, but in order to prevent white females from following the example of black females and becoming similarly liberated. (I kid you not, not only do people get paid huge sums of money to come up with these notions in our leading universities, but people representing opposing points of view face difficulty finding employment at these same universities.) 

So once you have embraced the notion that resisting sexual desire is impossible, any attempt to do so is unhealthy repression, and any suggestion that you have some moral or even practical responsibility to inhibit your sexual behavior amounts to oppression, where does that leave you? Well for one, I have long noticed that the “anti – teen pregnancy” educational programs often amount to male – bashing. Teen females are told not to allow boys to pressure them into having sex (which is an offense that ranges from sexual harassment to even sexual assault depending on the circumstances), and that the only reason why boys want to have sex with them anyway is to get them pregnant and prevent them from going to college and becoming feminist lawyers (I am not making this up … this was the theme of Bill Clinton Health and Human Services secretary Donna Shalala’s anti – teen pregnancy campaign). The component of this campaign aimed at boys was entirely concerned with demanding that they not use manipulation and coercion to extort sex acts from females. The idea that a female desiring sexual activity may be capable of finding a male willing to accommodate her was never countenanced, because the very notion of a person abstaining from consensual sex for any reason is not an option for this mindset. 

So that brings us to the situation at Connecticut’s Wesleyan University – yes, a Christian school! – where we are supposed to believe that it is biologically, emotionally, psychologically NORMAL for a male and female to share a room without so much as glancing at each other EVEN OUT OF CURIOSITY OR FOR PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT! Why? Because due to this mindset, there is nothing inherently desirable or attractive about the female body that a heterosexual male would respect, and a female has no real interest in receiving attention and affection from a male, and this is the case even for males and females that are lonely, awkward, emotionally/socially stunted, etc., which is known to be a problem for teenagers. (Now in times past, it was common to attribute these emotional and social problems to repressed sexuality, and advocate sexual liberation to solve the problem. In the modern era, it has become common to convince children experiencing these adjustment issues that they are homosexual or transgendered, and that their problems will be solved by coming out of the closet … the purpose of proselytizing “gay clubs” at junior high, high, and increasingly elementary schools, and sex change procedures for preteens.) Instead, the interviewees selected for this story brag about their “platonic friendships” and how “they avert their eyes when their roommate is wearing underwear.” So, that is where it gets really strange. The natural order of affairs is for heterosexuals of the same sex avoid viewing one another because, quite frankly, they have no desire to, and as a result no sexual behavior is going to result from heterosexuals being nude or near – nude around each other. So while exposing people to unwanted nudity is not ideal, in certain situations it is practically unavoidable, so the best approach is to limit these situations to people of the same sex in order to protect members of both sexes from unwanted sexual behavior and sexual aggression (yes looking at someone sexually who does not desire it, raping someone with your eyes, is sexual aggression). So, we are supposed to perceive a healthy female and male sharing a room for months without looking, touching, engaging in intercourse, etc. without any hint of sexual tension or frustration to be a sign of the advanced modern progressive mindset, as opposed to the very unnatural sexual repression that these same leftists oppose in other contexts.

 So why is it allowed in this context? And moreover, why do the campus feminists not see any compelling interest in protecting their sisters from the sexual harassment and rape that will inevitably occur not only because of evolutionary biology, but a patriarchal society that encourages and rewards males that engage in female victimization? Why are these feminists willing to allow such arrangements to exist based on the mere “trust” (in the words of the female quoted in the article) of a male that biology and society makes inherently untrustworthy? Well, the answer is hinted at in the article.

The only bit of truth that they were willing to reveal was that the policy of allowing coeducational rooms was adopted at the request of homosexuals who preferred not to live with people of the same sex. But the full range of the homosexual agenda, of course, is not given in the article. They merely quote the National Student Genderblind Campaign and leave it at that. But it is simple: the very notion that rooms should not be coeducational is “heterosexist” based on the presumption that the inhabitants of the room are heterosexual, and would want to avoid sexually uncomfortable male – female living arrangements based on it. It discriminates against the homosexual who would find living with a member of the same sex just as uncomfortable as would a heterosexual woman would in being forced to cohabitate with an unrelated male. 

Now please note two things. 1) It is perfectly acceptable for a homosexual to declare himself uncomfortable with living with a heterosexual member of the same sex and request a different room assignment based on it. But a heterosexual doing the same regarding a homosexual roommate would not only never be accommodated, but would likely face disciplinary action under these universities’ “nondiscrimination policies.” 2) Accommodating homosexuals on this point requires heterosexuals to not only participate, but behave themselves in a most unnatural manner. Publicity, after all, is everything. Public relations – wise, it would be very difficult to implement this policy were the justification to facilitate the desire of males and females to sexually experiment on each other. (One university cited by CNN has a specific policy against sex partners explicitly seeking to room together, and it is mentioned that “roomcest” is the popular term for it.) It would also be very difficult to pull off were notions of homosexual rights and equality to be the known motivating force. So, in the very same fashion that former CBS News employee Bernard Goldberg detailed in his book “Bias” of how the mainstream media used the AIDS virus to advance the homosexual agenda by making the public face of AIDS heterosexual white upper middle class suburban sexually inactive people like Ryan White and Kimberly Bergalis (“Peanuts” creator Charles Schultz even got into the act by producing a cartoon special aired on CBS about a playmate and schoolmate of Charlie Brown having AIDS), the public face of this growing policy is white upper class heterosexual college kids at elite universities that have no interest in having sex with each other; heterosexuals that either lack or have specifically rejected very natural biological, emotional, and psychological needs and desires. Now keep in mind the context here: these policies exist because homosexuals were unable or unwilling to either lack or reject their desires for roommates of the same sex and requested a roommate of a different one, “Will and Grace” situation comedy style. So we have reached a situation where – according to the practical effects of homosexual rights activism and its accommodation by university administrators and the media – heterosexual desire is unnatural, undesirable, harmful, and should be inhibited. Homosexual desire is natural and desirable, a goal or ideal to be appreciated and attained. Which is – surprise surprise – precisely what homosexual intellectuals of both sexes have been advocating for decades now. It is not the least uncommon for homosexual intellectuals and researchers to publish scholarship and give lectures consisting primarily of rants against normal sexuality. (It is only uncommon for the mainstream media to publicize them.)

Though homosexual male scholars have since developed their own, this began with feminist queer studies (yes, educational study field exists, you can earn college degrees for it and such) first indoctrinating women about how evil and depraved males were for wanting to have sex with women, how women had no ability to consent to sexual behavior in patriarchal (meaning Christian) societies because men have the power and use it to brainwash and coerce women, how all sexual relations between men and women is actually rape as a result, and how women who delude themselves into thinking that they love and desire men and acting accordingly are contributing to domestic violence, rape, child molestation, etc. Again, I am not making this stuff up. But it puts the response of the academic community and the media to the Duke lacrosse rape scandal in context: even after it was discovered that the charges were false, “the men were still guilty for wanting to look at naked black women in the first place.”

Yes, according to the university crowd and the media, the very act of men hiring these women that were not only consenting adults but actually OLDER than the Duke students themselves (the women were 26 and 32 according to media reports) for the purposes of being entertained by viewing their bodies was no different from actually raping them. So, the university community and the media have internalized this homosexual agenda to this very extent. Perhaps the best example was an “Afrocentric” black MALE scholar who was widely – and uncritically – quoted in the media as saying that the white males were wrong – and should have been punished by the administration and legal system! – for hiring black strippers because “they wanted to do something with them that they couldn’t do to white girls.” That betrays this fellow’s mindset that sex between a man and a woman is merely the man exploiting, oppressing, harming, etc. a woman, and that these fellows wanted black women so that they could behave even more wantonly … even more unnaturally. During that entire controversy, none of the people that professed indignantly “what were these wealthy privileged white male athletes doing hiring black strippers to begin with”, no one even questioned the possibility that these fellows might have simply wanted a full viewing of the black female bodies that they can only get a teasing partial viewing of on Black Entertainment Television practically 24 – 7. Why? Because that desire would have been natural, and the media and the academic community have all fully embraced unnatural sexuality as the the only form of sexuality that is moral.

So, the question is this: after the media and the educational institutions of a nation adopt an idea, how long does it take for mainstream society to follow suit? 30 years? 20 years? 10 years? How long before large portions of society start viewing heterosexual desire as an object of ridicule and scorn, and even a reason for self – hate and self – mutilation such as that exhibited by children getting sex change procedures in the article mentioned prior? Only time will tell. The question is: will you also adopt this unnatural mindset, the twisted mind of a person that has thoroughly rejected Jesus Christ and the Bible not only in this area but in so many others? If you do not wish to, then the answer is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Click Here for details.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Juanita Bynum Takes Her Demonic Apostasy Lies To Divorce Court TV Show So That She Can Ruin Even More Marriages!

Posted by Job on April 22, 2008

Key quote: “I was just trying to make it work because I don’t like losing relationships,” Bynum said.  And they call this woman a preacher … see link below.

Bynum discusses marriage on ‘Divorce Court’

 

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 151 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: