Olde Time Christian Morals (and logic)

I have to give thanks to the good folks at Sadly, No! for bringing this one up. It is truly a marvel to behold in its dishonesty and lack of logic. I am referring to this piece by Christian trial lawyer, Reed R. Heustis, Jr. Even Ray Comfort's banana debacle seems rational next to it. (Well that may be stretching a bit too far -- Ray, shall we say, has serious problems...) The pro-Jeezus, anti-gay and anti-freedom screed was written back in 2006, so it is not new. But as you read, you can see nothing has changed from then to now. The same innanity still exists, only today it is in the mouths of Republican presidential candidates.

It is ironic that those flaunting the rainbow flag view it as a "freedom flag" that somehow promotes liberty. According to the Word of God, there can only be liberty where the Spirit of the Lord is (2 Cor 3:17), and the Spirit of the Lord will never be found in partnership with sin.

Yes Liberty.. Everyone knows that actual liberty really means servitude. That the only true Americans to possess "liberty" were the slaves. Let's see what else the bible has to say about liberty and Christians..

casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of
Christ [2 Cor 10:5 NKJV]

Sounds like liberty to me, ignoring everything that comes from humanity, and making one's thoughts entirely captive to Christ. That certainly cannot be called slavery... Oh no. But being captive to Christ is considered "liberty". Didn't the slave owners say the same thing to, and about, their slaves? Why I do believe so.

But I want to be a bit broader here. If you were to read the Bible quote given by Mr. Heustis, it is this: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" Notice that it does not say that the only source of liberty is Jesus.

But what is most interesting (and most detrimental to his argument) is what else Paul had to say in that very same passage:

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— 13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [2 Cor 3:12-16 NKJV]

Amazing! Paul is saying that the dictates of Moses are superceded by Jesus' teachings. But what does Jesus teach about homosexuality? Absolutely nothing! Leviticus teaches that eating shellfish is an abomination to God. Leviticus also teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Yet Jesus teaches in the Gospels that no food is an abomination, and says nothing about homosexuality at all. In fact, when you read the epistles of Paul, he gives a laundry list of sins (homosexuality among them) that are wrong, but here he is saying that none of this matters.

This is what is known as a contradiction. Homosexuality as a sin is plainly found in Paul's epistles. It cannot be found anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus, because he never mentioned it. Yet here, in the very same passage Mr. Heustis is using to prove his pro-slavery-is-liberty point is the evidence that he is profoundly wrong.

Summarized, it is this: If one thing is found in the Old Testament to be an abomination to God (eating shellfish) as is another thing (homosexuality). Then later, Jesus says that nothing you eat is an abomination to God, but says nothing about homosexuality. And finally, even later Paul says that the entire works of Moses was just a veil and that only belief in Jesus is the way, but even later says, "oh, not so much, these things are still wrong...(including homosexuality)"

Furthermore, if Jesus himself even said that the only way to follow Him was to forsake your family, then how can the concept of family, that being man, woman, and children be held in high esteem?

Mr Heustis goes even farther though. His next paragraph is:

Contrary to a truly free people, unrepentant homosexuals live in a state of bondage and slavery. They act upon the deluded notion that their licentiousness is liberty and they foolishly wave their flag to communicate their folly. By promoting Gay Pride, homosexuals promote the antithesis of freedom.

Yes, because living your own life as you see fit is the "antithesis of freedom" whereas living your life as these conservative Christians want to force you into living it is "actual" freedom.

I have to wonder though, if this is what liberty and freedom are actually defined as: slavery and repression; then what about the actual dictates of Jesus? Jesus said that the rich will never enter heaven. Jesus said that his true followers would never own anything more than a pair of sandals, one cloak and one walking stick. He also specifically said that their purses were to be empty.

Poverty and Christianity were foretold by Jesus to be one and the same. Reconsidering the words of Mr Heustis, "the Spirit of the Lord will never be found in partnership with sin" and the sins recounted by the words of Christ; valuing your family above God, and possessing anything other than the clothes on your back, then in the words of Jesus when he said this are more appropriate today:

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. [Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV]

Words more true were never spoken. When the Bible is taken as a guide, that few is weeded down to almost zero. (I think Ned Flanders is the only human going to heaven).