Origin of Race within the Human Species

In an online discussion following a post made by my friend, Michael, someone asked:

Hmmmm... I wonder who created the races! LOL



Although, he posted in jest, the post made me think hard about the answer.  The following is my answer:

The concept of race is the creation of man. Race is identified by an arbitrary set of physical characteristics: skin tone, straightness of hair, facial features, etc.  One can just as easily define race with a different set of physical characteristics. e.g., purely by height and body fat content.


His response:

Well, man created the "concept." But, who created the differences in human beings that are ultimately used to define race?



My answer:

Our differences are part of the beauty of God's creation. Division based on the differences is the result of man's fallen nature.


One does not fault God for creating a multitude of types of flowers.

Should Christians Vote for Donald Trump?

View Fox News Eric Metaxas Interview Video here.

Christian Radio host, Eric Metaxas, argues that if Hillary is elected, the "balance of power" within the U.S. Supreme Court will shift to the liberal side and that a change in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court would result in a shift in the character of our country. Thus, voting a despicable man into office is a justifiable evil.

This view is shared by many Christian voters who are sticking by Donald Trump.

Have they truly thought this proposition over? Or have they been coasting on "Christian" hot button topics for too long?

This country's character has already shifted. Changing the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to shift the character of our country back.

Even if Republicans take over the White House, retain majority of Congress, and appoints conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, is that really going to change the character of the country?

Millennials make up a third of the electorate and they lean towards the left. Forcing conservative views on them is just going to push them farther left.

The reason for the shift is due to American Christians not engaging in the lives of non-believers but instead cloistering themselves into "Christian" enclaves. If you are a Christian, ask yourselves this question: How much time in one week have you spent with non-Christian friends? How many non-Christian friends do you have?

Jesus came to write God's law onto hearts, not on tablets of stone.

Writing the law into hearts requires engagement and love, winning hearts, one person at a time.

Jesus walked, talked, and dined with Tax collectors and whores. And through this engagement, He built his church.

If we truly want to affect national morality, each of us need invest our lives in our neighbors, love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Relying on elections to steer our national morality runs counter to the example that Jesus set. Jesus did not come and topple the Roman government.

Yet, the American Church continues to insist on the legistlative approach to turning our country around.

Consider this: American Christians have invested enourmous sums of money and personal energy on "Christian" hot button issues for decades and what is the outcome? Has the Christian world view become more relevant to the average American?

Elections are for electing people who can effectively govern not about steering the national morality.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Elect the candidate who can best govern and invest our lives to loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves so that their hearts may be opened.

Are We Casting Stones?

Someone posted a complaint about how Christians are always casting stones at others on the Christian discussion forums. While it may sound like a legitimate complaint, there were several problems with his assertion. Here is his original post:

Let him without sin cast the first stone

Why is that a lot of so called Christians only post topics that only reveals someone elses short comings? Havent we all sinned and come short of his glory or have God himself sent another Son besides Jesus into the world thats perfect and is without fault. Instead of us using the scriptures to help one another out of love we beat the hell out of others and tell them everything wrong they"re doing, like anyone that walks this earth have room to talk or judge. Its like they just study a bunch of scriptures, pushed Jesus out of his judgement seat, became jusdge themselves, and start condemning others to hell because they're sinners.

Its hard to find any true Christian in these groups because everyone is walking around with some Bible verses ready to judge and a pocket full of stones to throw. I guess there church dont care to hear them preach so they just come on myspace and feel free to reveal everyone elses sin.

Jesus is a friend to sinners and to the ones that the world and these so called churches rejected. I'm a sinner but yet Im saved by grace. As it stated in Philippians 3:9 " And being found in him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness of God by faith."

I would love to hear your veiws on the topic.


The post assumes that because we are forgiven of all our sins, we no longer have to deal with sin.

Here is my reply:

Posting topics, to identify specific sins, does not necessarily constitute the casting of stones.

The casting of stone (literally) is capital punishment. It assumes that the sinner can not be redeemed and that society would be better off without this person.
Reiterating, what is right and what is wrong to an unsaved sinner, assumes that there is still a chance that the person can be redeemed.

The postings can also be for the edification of the Body of Christ. We may be saved, by grace, from having to pay the debt for our sin (death), it does not mean that we are to continue to sin.

Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If the saved sinner is not aware that he or she is sinning, the postings would alert the sinner of the problem. (DO NOT assume that every saved sinner knows about every sin.)

Even if the saved sinner is aware of that sin but is defiant and continues to sin, the Bible instructs us to try to turn him or her from the error of his/her way.

James 5:19-20
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Yes, Jesus IS a friend of the sinner. But that does not mean the Jesus wants to see sinners (saved or not) continuing to waddle in their sin.

Is our ministry a ministry of hate or a ministry of reconciliation?

Someone wrote the following several weeks ago.

We have all heard sermons on soul winning during which we are berated for not crying daily over the lost and then told we are to be broken hearted over the loss of the lowest, scummiest, God hating creatures on the planet. May I say word? BUNK!

We claim to be in an army. Where did you ever see a soldier cry over the death of an enemy soldier whose sworn duty was to kill him? There are people in this world who have given their lives to forward the devil's case and in the process damn millions of innocent souls to Hell. I have no compassion for them and no regret at their passing. I see it as one less soldier in the devil's army.

Do you think that U.S. soldiers wept and moaned at news of the deaths of Gen. Erwin Rommel or Ho Chi Minn? Rommel was a truly great soldier but he was on the wrong side! His death was a blessing to the allied cause.

But these fraudulent, over zealous, intimidating promoters of misguided compassion would have you crying over the death of people that hated God and His Book with everything they had. The Lord's cause benefits from these people going to their just desserts.

Am I off base? Check it out! Did the Lord Jesus Christ waste any of His time trying to win Herod to Himself in their only face-to-face meeting in Luke 23:6-9? No! Where was His "burden for souls"? Did God have compassion on the innocent prison guards of Acts 12:19? Nope! He stood by and let them be killed and go to Hell. Why? They were on the wrong side! Do you find the Apostle Peter or Paul weeping over the fate of Herod in Acts12:20-23? Never! But look at verse 24!

Here's the major problem with this misguided, possibly well meant, teaching. There is a great ruth to human love. You can love good people or you can love bad people but you cannot train your heart to love both.

What I mean is simply this: These same people who demand that you have to have compassion on sodomites and God-haters have no compassion on their fellow Christians who disagree with them in some way. They will gossip, lie and use all their influence to hurt a fellow Christian who they are mad at or view as a threat while at the same time they are demanding "compassion" for the God-haters. This is not right!

Some of you, in order to prove you are a compassionate person will bemoan the death of God-haters like Jean Dixon, Carl Sagan or Jacque Cousteau yet you will not hesitate to rip the throat out of your pastor or a fellow Christian who has angered you in some way. Why? Because you can't love them both. If you have chosen to exhibit false compassion for the God-haters you will not be able to find true compassion for those who are on God's side but disagree with you about something. You can love one or the other but you can't love them both.

I have placed myself unashamedly on God's side. If every God-hating atheist died tomorrow I would do back flips and praise God that the job of reaching the lost would now be easier. One of these days I'm going to hear that wicked Drs. Spock and Kevorkian have died to which I will respond with a hardy, "Praise God!" I didn't say that I have no compassion for the everyday lost common citizen who gets called every name in the Book by some overzealous street preachers. Them I care about. Them I'm trying to win. But I rejoice at the departure of those who deceive them (and you). They made their choice. Oh well!

Yet in all of this "lack of compassion" on my part I will have mercy on YOU if you disagree with me in some area. Their are preachers that I really don't care for. But they are saved! They are on God's side! I will not try to hurt or destroy them. (We call this "Grace". It takes legitimate compassion.) But if I am going to allow myself to love them I cannot find room to also love the devil's soldiers. Someone has to lose! I vote: the devil's soldiers.

Check yourself out. How many times have you hesitated to show any animosity for someone who openly works against God & the Bible yet you have not felt the least restriction about saying something that would damage a fellow Christian? You're the one whose messed up! Not me.

The vile college professors can go to their spiritual home!. Their misguided students I'll try to win. Every corrupting newspaper reporter can burn! But the guy that his lies deceive is going to get my heart felt efforts to win. Hollywood could sink into Hell today and I would praise God. But you who follow their indoctrination I will try to steer in the right direction. You can't love both!

Why don't you unload your pent up animosity on the queers, environmentalists, animal righters, Liberal judges and corp of devil's helpers, and show some compassion on your pastor, a preacher, a church member or a fellow Christian or just a lost common citizen who needs the truth and not say anything that will hurt them?

Mind you! We don't hurt people! We don't go shooting people or blowing them up. But we give them no quarter or mercy in our efforts to win the innocent lost. Let's lay off our brethren and vocally blast their brethren.

Some of you ought to get down on your knees and ask God to forgive you for the trouble you've caused in some church, while all that time you refused to say anything ugly about some movie star or sports figure. Change your ways! Exercise some mercy and compassion where it belongs! On God's people. The devil's crowd takes good care of their own. Let's not help them.

Did I make you mad? Have some compassion on me...or go hug a queer!


It really saddened me that there are Christians who actually feel this way. I originally started to write a response to counter each point that he made. But after praying about my response, it became appartent that the Lord just wanted me to post several scripture verses for him to read and over which to meditate.

Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Romans 12:17-21
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay, " says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 5:10-11
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16-18
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Divorce Discussion Continues

Several people responded to my blog entry concerning the topic of divorce. They noted the following statement that I made in that blog entry:

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else).

And asked that I clarify my stance on divorce.

My reply was that Jesus was very explicit concerning divorce.

Mark 10:5-12 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage. If one re-marries after divorce, one commits adultery.

They replied with the objections that I had been expecting. They cited two sets of verses which seem to allow remarriage after divorce under certain circumstances: Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Matthew 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Many people believe that the first part of the verse gives the husband permission to divorce his wife and re-marry if she had committed fornication. However, Jesus never said that. Jesus was pointing out the consequences of divorcing one's wife. If a husband divorces his wife, he will cause her to commit adultery unless she is already an adulterer. If she is already an adulterer then her being an adulterer is not the husband's fault.

Unbelievably, those, citing this verse, consistently failed to reference the latter part of the verse: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". Is that not clear enough? The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Many people pointed out that the word "widows", in verse 7, was translated from the original Greek word "chera" and that "chera" literally means "lacking a husband". They reasoned that the reference to "chera" includes not only widows but also divorcee. Thus, they concluded that the Apostle Paul was giving permission to divorcees to remarry if they burn with passion.

This literal translation of the original Greek word "chera" is simply bad translation. It does not account for how that word is normally used in the cultural context of the writer and his readers/audience. It refers to widows.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not a virgin because the original Greek word, from which the word "virgin" was translated, also means little girl, concluding that Mary was a little girl and not a virgin since Mary was pregnant. That's simply a bad interpretation since Mary was old enough to marry (at least 12) and would not be viewed by as a little girl in that society.

The people who tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as justification of re-marriage after divorce also failed to address the next two verses.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, as Paul giving permission for re-marriage after divorce, would cause verses 8-9 to contradict verses 10-11, the next two verses. The only way, for there to be no contradiction, is for the original Greek word "chera" to be interpreted as "widows" only.

One can not be formulating one's theology by cherry-picking only ambiguous verses and interpreting them to support one's view. There needs to be agreement among all the verses concerning the topic.

And the only way, there can be agreement between all these verses, is if one interprets the two ambiguous verses as I did and concludes that while there may be permissibility of divorce due to the hardness of man's heart, re-marriage after divorce is adultery.

However, I must reiterate that while God's standard is so high that it's unattainable, He does provide mercy.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Divorce

According to Barna Research Group's 2004 poll, among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

Barna also noted that he analyzed the data according to the ages at which survey respondents were divorced and the age at which those who were Christian accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. "The data suggest that relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior," he explained.

To be fair, Barna's survey showed that a larger portion of those, who are not born again Christians, co-habits, effectively, side-stepping marriage - and divorce - altogether.

Nevertheless, more than a third of Christian marriages end in divorce.

While the statistics did not surprise me, I was shocked and very saddened by the recent appearance of the cover story of Christianity Today entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce."

Even Time Magazine made a note of it in its November 5, 2007 issue in the article entitled "An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?"

It's bad enough that more than a third of all Christian marriages end in divorce, now Christian leaders are altering their theology to accommodate this trend.

(I'm purposely not any mentioning prominent Christian leader who has or is planning to divorce.)

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else). However, there's a major difference between asking for forgiveness for a sin and modifying theology to no longer recognize that act as a sin.

Need I remind us that the marriage relationship is the image that God gave us to describe His relationship with the Church? Need I remind us that adultery is the image that God gave us to describe the situation when we abandon Him to worship idols? If these are the images that God gave us, what would be the embracing of divorce?

Most importantly, how we view divorce is a reflection of how we view marriage. And if we no longer view marriage as a binding relationship, how would this view effect the health of our marriages?

Perhaps we all need to be reminded of what the scripture says about divorce.

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-10

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

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. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?

And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Dealing with Non-Believers

I've been encountering some very distressing sentiment from within the Body of Christ. By no mean is the sentiment a majority opinion. However, I've encountered it enough times within the past several weeks that I felt compelled to respond to it. Often it is subtle but there has been times in which it was very overt.

Of what is it I am speaking? It is the sentiment that non-believers (whether atheists or believers of other religions) are to be treated as our adversary. The advocates, of this sentiment, were often engaged in a shouting match with non-believers.

That is, of course, very inappropriate. Satan and his hosts of fallen angles are our enemies, not non-believers. The non-believers are the battle grounds upon which our war, against the evil one, is waged.

The following is a prime example of this sentiment:

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST,

THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

WHY WOULD PRIMITIVE MAN, "IN HIS PRIMITIVE THINKING," THINK OF HAVING RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG? ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, SHOULDN'T THESE RANDOM THOUGHT BE A RANDOM BLAST OF ENERGY? ANYHOW, WHO TOLD PRIMITIVE MAN ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG?

WHO TOLD PRIMORDIAL SOUP ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG? HOW DID MONKEY-MAN'S INVENTIONS GO FROM A BASIC STICK TO RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY? THESE ARE SUCH SILLY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE AN EXPLANATION OF FACTS RATHER THAN SO RANDOM GUESS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPEN.

IF ATHEISM IS SURE THEN WHY WOULD ANY ATHEIST FOLLOW THE RULES OF A CHRISTIANIZED STATE? WHY DO ATHEIST LISTEN AND REACT TO THE LAWS OF THE RELIGIOUS "KNOW NOTHINGS" OF THE PAST? IT IS PROVEN THAT "EVERY CULTURE OF THE PAST" HAD ITS OWN RELIGION BUT AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. HOW TRAGIC. HERE ARE SOME KEY NOTES ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATHEIST.

1. ATHEISTS SHOULD GO OUT AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE!

THIS IS A RELIGIOUS RULE RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE ATHEISTIC WAY TO BELIEVE RELIGIONS. NEVER MIND IF THAT PERSON HAS LOVED ONES.

2. ATHEISTS SHOULD COMMIT ADULTERY!

AGAIN, ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RULE, BUT NOT ATHEISTIC TO HEED THIS WARNING.

WHO CARES IF YOU RUIN A FAMILY OF FOUR AND THE CHILDREN GETS TO SEE THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS. JUST AS LONG AS YOU CAN SLEEP WITH YOUR BOSS RIGHT?

3. ATHEISTS SHOULD STEAL!

YEP, A RELIGIOUS RULE NOT TO DO SO, BUT ACCORDING TO ATHEISM, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST" THEN IT SHOULD BE OK TO GO TO A BANK AND TAKE EVERY CENT OF CURRENCY THEY HAVE. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST," THEN HIS WORDS DON'T EXIST.

IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THEN PERFORM YOUR DUTY AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WORDS OF MY GOD!

Here is my response.

I am a Christian but I can provide the atheist's counter to your argument.

The three rules that you mentioned (don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal) are part of the social contract: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

It does not require God to tell us to do so, for us to know that we need to do so, in order for those of us, who live within a society to, co-exist peacefully.

An atheist would also remind you that Christianity does not have exclusive claim to the so-called Golden Rule. You'll find the same ethic in religions ranging from polytheist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What is the difference, between all the religions, is how one deals with the violation of the golden rule ethics.

At this point I'll put back on my Christian hat and remind you that the foundation of the Christian faith is

Romans 3:22-24

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

All of us are sinners. It is purely by the grace of God that we are saved. Before we were saved, all of us were in the same boat as the atheist, doomed to eternal damnation and unable to hear the word of God. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that allow us to see the truth.

You can shout at atheists as loudly as you like and they would never hear you for they do not have the indwelling the Holy Spirit. If you truly want to see them saved, I'd suggest that you do two things:

1) Get down on your knees and pray for their salvation.

2) Love them! Love them as Jesus would them.

p.s., BTW, The commandment is not "Don't kill". The commandment is "Don't commit murder." There is a difference. Murder is unjustified killing. There are justified killing such as self defense, the defense of the innocent, etc.

Is God Fair?

Some one posted the following in one of the Christian discussion forums:

The Son of Sam killer (David Berkowitz) supposedly became saved in prison and has been exhibiting very good behavior. It is entirely possible that ol' Dave Berkowitz may join us in heaven with the Father, while his victims rot in hell. Unfair?

The person, who posted the above, answered it with:

yeah, a little.. unjust? no. Why? Because God can do whatever he wants. He's God.

I was not happy with this answer. It leaves the reader with the impression that God is not fair and that the only reason that God is just is because He makes up the rules and He can bend the rules anyway He likes to accommodate His whim.

This perspective runs counter to the Christian faith. The Christian doctrine is emphatic about the absolutism of God's standard.

The absolutism of God's standard is why there is the necessity of grace.

It is wrong to sin and the penalty of sin is death. But all of us sin. Because God loves us and doesn't want us to perish, He can either change His mind and say, it is no longer wrong to sin (change His standard) or He can give forgiveness to whoever sins and accepts His forgiveness (absolutism of His standard and grace).

God chose to maintain the absolutism of His standard and dispense grace by sending His Son, Jesus the Christ, to die, in our stead, for our sin.

So, how can God saving Berkowitz while condemning his victims (who did not accept God's forgivenes) be fair?

Jesus answered the question of fairness in the "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Mathew 20:1-15) in which the landowner goes out and hires workers with the promise to pay a denarius for the day. He hired workers at the beginning of the day and continues to hire workers throughout the day. At the end of the day, everyone was paid a denarius. When questioned about the fairness of the same wage for a disparate amount of work, the owner answered:

"Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

In the case of the Lord dispensing grace, the agreement is that the Lord promised forgiveness to anyone who asks. It does not matter if someone "sinned greater" than others. If the Lord fulfills His promise, He is both just and fair. If someone is forgiven more than others, the Lord is being just, fair, and generous.

What would be unfair is if God saves someone who did not repent and/or did not ask for forgiveness.

Categorizing Churches

Do denominations really make that much of a difference? Within the Catholic church, there's a wide array of local parishes that worship as differently as night and day. We can say the same for many of the Protestant denominations like the United Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

I have a theory:

The real distinctions between local parishes/congregations, irregardless of denomination, is that they can be categorized into one of three different groups: fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic.

Fundamentalists focus on adhering to the fundamentals of the faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Basically, it's yielding to the call of the Father to pursue holiness.

Evangelicals focus on completing the Great Commission that Jesus commanded the disciples before His ascension.

Charismatics focus on the being moved by the Holy Spirit.

It's really a focus on the call of one of the three God Head.

Of course, no local parish/congregation is completely Fundamentalist or completely Evangelical or completely Charismatic.

It's more of a spectrum within a triangle in which each corner of the triangle represents one of the far end of spectrum: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Charismatic. And each local parish/congregation falls somewhere within the triangle.

A well balanced parish/congregation would fall smack in the middle of the triangle.

It's just a theory. I don't have any Biblical reference to back it up.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussing it in a Christian Forum

Having heard the reactions to the scenario in a non-Christian forum, I was curious to hear the reactions to the scenario in a Christian forum. So I posted the scenario of Hans stealing the medicine to save his wife on some Christian Discussion groups.

This time there were equal numbers saying Hans was right as those saying Hans was wrong. However, there were a couple of women who fervently defended Hans' position.

Their main assertion is that life is precious; so precious that God would want us to steal to protect the life of our love ones.

For my part, I reiterated my two main points:

1) God's standard does not change; stealing is wrong in all circumstances.

2) While life is precious, preservation of life must not trump obedience to God.

Our discussion resulted in pages and pages of posts. Most of these two women's posts are reiteration of their main assertion and accusations of my lack of humanity.

Frustrated with my counterpoints, one of the women stated:

Discussing the right or wrongness of an action bears no fruit that I can see.

So I posted the following:

Most westerner believers think that the scenario that I posted is purely hypothetical. Having traveled through parts of central Asia, I know that Christians in the east have to face this type of decisions all the time. Choosing between pursuing holiness and facing possible death for one's self or for a love one. It is amazing to see what happens when they choose holiness. Not only does God provide (e.g., causes a doctor to change his mind or their friends and neighbors rally to support them), but also God uses their actions to win the hearts and souls of Muslim observers.

In the same way, I could choose to obey God and risk my life by traveling to a certain Muslim country or I could say God surely doesn't want me to go because my life would be endangered. I can still remember the comment of an Uzbek cab driver when I walked out the of police station (when the corrupt police officers were shaking me down for money) and no a single officers stopped me. He said in his broken English, "God with you!" God provided my freedom and provided an open door to this Uzbek man's heart.

In fact, I can personally tell you that evangelical Christians in China pray hard for Christians in the west, especially in America, to have the conviction to say this is right and I'm going to trust God to provide when I do what is right. And even if not, I'm going to do what is right because I will partake of glory on the other side of eternity.

Yes, life is precious. However, it is not to be worshipped in such a way that saving the life is more important than obedience to God. And yes, God commanded us not to steal. It applies now as well as in old testament times. So not stealing is being obedient to God.

So many believers say that they offer up their lives to God but do they truly mean it or do they really mean they offer their services as long as their lives or the lives of their love ones are not at stake.

This is the foundation of our faith. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac. He can choose to obey God or he can say, "No, life is more precious so God must not really want me to take Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed".

What would you do if you were in Abraham's place? How you answer that question defines of YOUR faith.*

*I'm adding this footnote just in case someone might misunderstand my last statement. I meant that if we truly believe that life on the other side of eternity is much better than this one and that when we accept Jesus as our Savior we would be saved, would we be clinging so tightly to this life that we are willing to say that it's ok to sin if our lives are at stake.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussion Continues

The discussion concerning Hans' theft of medication for his dying wife continued with more repetition of the same ideas.

So, I wrote the following to sum up my position on the topic:

While I sympathize with Hans' situation, I can not condone doing something wrong for the purpose of doing something right. The logic of the end justifying the means is simply bad logic.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can rob his neighbor to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can commit armed robbery of a bank to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

My opposition is that there are too many alternative actions that can be pursued without having to resort to doing something wrong. Hans is either lazy or impatient or has no perseverance and gave up on pursuing morally right options.

My other opposition is that taking a morally wrong short cut has bad consequences. We have a legal framework for a reason. It is to minimize bad consequences. That is why we can not simply isolate our evaluation of Hans' morality to just the intent and the act.

If a metal artist steals an I-Beam from the Minnesota highway bridge over the Mississippi to build the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world. Can we simply isolate our evaluation to just the act of theft of the I-Beam from the bridge and the intent of building the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world? No, we have to consider the possibility of a bridge collapse that kills dozens of people.

In the same way, we must consider the possibility of the entire community loosing the doctor's services as a result of the theft. If the loss of $50, 000 drives the doctor out of the community, we must then consider the death of children dying from preventable diseases because of the doctor's absence.

The end can NOT justify the means!

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the crazy anti-abortion activists who fire bomb abortion clinics.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the eco-terrorists who burn down homes next to wilderness areas.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the rioters who burn businesses in the cities hosting the G8 summit.

If you look at all the major atrocities of the twentieth century, they all started with the persuasion of an unsuspecting public that the end justifies the means.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it?

Lately, I have been participating in non-Christian forums concerning moral issues. Basically, I wanted to see how well I can defend the Christian perspective in a secular forum in which the contents of the Bible is irrelevant to the other members of the forum.

This week, someone started a new thread with the following post:

A man named Hans has a dying wife with a mysterious disease. It was thought that this disease had no cure until finally a doctor had created a special medicine that can save the life of Hans' wife. The problem is the doctor is charging $50,000 which is much more money that Hans can afford. At first, Hans tries to raise the money but he's still well short of the asking price. He then tries to negotiate with the doctor, but the doctor refuses to lower his price. Finally in a desperate measure, Hans steals the medicine behind the doctor's back. Was Hans wrong to do such a thing?

Immediately, someone else, posted

Nope he wasn't wrong

Another posted the following:

Sure, what Han did was wrong, but any sane human being would do the same thing. I would not equate $50,000 with an irreplaceable human life. The doctor will live and replace the lost money. The wife doesn't have the luxury of replacing her life. Also I'd rather live with the indirect death of others than live without my loved one.

The dilemma is between two moral wrongs. Which wrong is more serious is the question. Is stealing a bigger wrong than not saving a life? It is very cut and dry. The power is in your hands. The guilt and responsibility is yours and yours alone.

Instead of posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism, I posted the following to prime the discussion:

What if it costs the doctor $50,000 to make the medicine? Let's say that the doctor purchases its ingredients with his own money with the assumption that the patient that needs it would redeem the cost that he incurs?

Now, he's out $50,000 and unable to pay his bills which includes the rent of his office space, the repayment of loan for his medical equipment (like x-ray machines, sterilizing ovens, etc.), and his medical school loan.

So, he packs up his practice to move it to an upscale neighborhood in which his patients are able to pay.

Now, the poor neighborhood, the original location of his practice, is without a doctor; many babies and children die from preventable diseases because of the lack of a doctor there.

Not so cut and dry is it?

The person who started the thread responded with the following:

You're missing the point of the question and adding irrelevent ideas to the story. I'm simply asking if Hans' action is right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

Again, I refrained from posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism and continued my argument for considering the consequences of Hans' action. I wrote the following:

The ideas that I inject are not irrelevant. You are saying that theft stops at the loss of property and we should weigh the loss of life against the loss of property.

But too often, then it comes to health care, it does not stop at the loss of property.

In fact, the scenario plays out over and over in developing countries in which a socialist government takes over. These government would impose price control on the medical profession (as well as other parts of the economy) using the same comparisons that you specify. Whether it is the government imposing price control or Han stealing the medicine, it's still theft.

The doctors and other medical care workers have bills to pay and with the price control are not able to do so. So they leave the country and the entire nation sinks into a health care disaster. Check the news on Zimbabwe.

Closer to home, in West Virginia, people have been suing Ob/Gyn left and right. Same logic, it's only money; the doctors can re-earn the money. Unable to pay the malpractice insurance, all the Ob/Gyn left West Virginia. People there have to leave the state to get prenatal care if they are able to do so. Those, who don't have the means to travel to neighboring states, suffer. More particularly, these babies suffer.

When it comes to healthcare, theft does not stop at the lost of property.

The moral standpoint must weigh the loss of one life against the loss of many lives.

There are consequences to all our actions and moral judgment must not only account for the single act but also the consequences of that act.

Most of the posts rebutting my posts continues to rehash the argument that Hans is correct because he has chosen the lesser of two evils.

So, I asked the following two questions:

If what you said is true, then would it be ok for Hans to rob a bank to pay the doctor? Would he be right if he rob you to pay the doctor?

Then, someone posted a reply that allows me to segway to my structured argument supporting moral absolutism. He wrote the following:

Right and Wrong is personal perspective. If he were to attempt such a thing, two things can happen:

1.) I would kick his @ss and rob him of his dignity.

2.) He will be put in jail and punished by the courts.

These consequences are the results of the technical wrong he has done to me. This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000.

But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable. If it weren't, then we'd feel no sympathy. If he needed the money for drugs, booze, and prostitutes then I can agree with you 100% that it was totally wrong.

I'll break it down one more time. His actions are wrong because it was an act of theft (against the rules). His intensions were right because he is saving a life (protect family).

It is not black and white like you want it. "Intent" is a very important factor in morality and in law. It could mean the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sometimes judges consider the defendant's competence. This is related with the defendant's "intent" as well. We do not live in a black and white world so don't limit youself to that view.

Here is my reply:

You have misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's intent. It is not the determination of whether he did wrong in order to help someone else or for selfish gain (the rob Peter to pay Paul scenario) as you described it. It is to determine if he intended to do wrong or was the wrong committed accidentally (the difference between murder and manslaughter).

e.g. Did the accused shoplifted a sweater or did she try it on, continued shopping and forgetting that she still had it on, walked out of the store?

Hans did not mistakenly take the medicine. He purposely took it for his wife.

You also misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's competence. A defendant's competence is not based on intent. It is a determination of whether the defendant knows if he knows right from wrong. I think we can agree that Hans knows that stealing is wrong. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

So legally, he would be convicted.

But, let's separate what is legal from what is morally right and limit our discussion to what is morally right.

You nailed our disagreement right on the head. It's a matter of whether one believes there is a moral absolute or is morality relative. I believe in a moral absolute and you believe in moral relativism (as do most other participants in this particular thread).

The problem with moral relativism is that often the criteria slips into what's best for one's self is what is right and what's bad for one's self is what is wrong. Your reply is a prime example. You wrote "Right and Wrong is personal perspective... This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000... But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable."

If we apply that criteria, society would fall apart.

That's why we have laws that are... well... absolute.

The scenario is framed for the purpose of supporting moral relativism.

First, it leads the readers to feel sympathetic towards Hans and unsympathetic towards the doctor. What if the doctor borrowed the $50,000 to make the medicine? What if Hans' effort to raise the money consisted of knocking one door and rejected never tried again?

Then, it leads the readers to conclude a false assertion. "Finally in a desperate measure" lead the readers to believe that Hans has exhausted all courses of action.

Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Not that I'm advocating these actions but, Hans did not rob a bank to get the money to pay for the medicine nor did he rob an individual for the money as I had mentioned before.

Until his wife dies or Hans dies (whichever event comes first), Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Every day brings new conditions and new opportunities for the acquisition of the medicine.

Hans simply gave up and resorted to breaking the law. And that is why Hans is wrong.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well (Epilog)

At the end of last December, someone slammed into my car. (Thankfully, no one was hurt.) While my car was in the body shop, I drove a rental. A couple of days later, I caught the flu and stayed in bed the entire week. During that week, the city of Baltimore ticketed and towed my rental car that I parked in front of my own house.

I live near the stadium where the Baltimore Ravens NFL team plays. Because game spectators tries to avoid parking fees by parking in my neighborhood, the city designated my street a sticker parking street during stadium events; only cars with a particular parking sticker are allowed to park there.

Unfortunately, my rental car doesn't have a parking sticker and I had not realized that there are any NFL games at the end of the year (That's when they have the college football bowl games).

To get the rental car out of the city impound lot, I had the pay the cost of the ticket, the towing charges, and the impound lot vehicle storage fee; close to five hundred dollars.

I contested it in court and won. However, I did not receive the money back right away. The city had to process all the documents that I submitted.

This week, just as the bills started to come in (see my previous blog), I received the check from the City of Baltimore.

The Lord is faithful once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well

I dread it when the Holy Spirit directs me to give more sacrificially than what I've budgeted. I've already committed much more than the tithe percentage of my monthly net income. And I've also specified a couple of percentages more for discretionary giving to the homeless that I meet on the street. So, when the Holy Spirit appeals to me to help with more, I would spend several days praying about it.

O.K., I really don't spend the prayer time seeking God's guidance. It's more like several days of protesting the request of the Holy Spirit. More particularly, it's a couple of days of protesting and a couple of more asking Him to prepare me for the storm.

You see, the issue isn't about the giving of the money; I always leave some breathing room in my monthly budget.

What I dread is that whenever I give beyond what I've budgeted, without exception, a series of events/setbacks would follow and take me financially into an area that is completely out of my control.

This week was no exception.

A young woman, that I know, needed financial help with the cost of mission college training. I wrestled with the Holy Spirit concerning the amount. I offered an amount that I can afford but the Holy Spirit kept me restless. I reworked my budget and offer a little more but the Holy Spirit continued to keep me restless. Finally, I threw out my budget and asked the Holy Spirit to pick a figure; and He took away the breathing room from my budget for the next several months.

Lord, please, prepare me for the storm! Please, please, prepare me for the storm.

When my heart calmed, I unfurled the sail.

Then, the storm hit. My brother's Medicare prescription plan hit the "donut hole" and his prescriptions will cost $800 per month for the next several months. My car's air conditioner gave out during the hottest part of the summer. A lightening strike burned out the circuitry in my house's heat pump. My main sewer line backed up into my basement bathroom tub because the tree in front of my house grew its root into it.

I am, by no mean, destitute. I do have savings from which to draw. I just hate to have to dip from that fund since I don't believe that Social Security nor my company pension would be there when I retire.

Besides, in all previous times, when the Lord pushed me out from the security of my safety net, He had always provided so that I would not have to withdraw a single dime from my savings.

What I truly dread is the fear from the financial freefall that He forces me to take before catching me again.

Each time, He would whisper, "Trust me. Trust me" as I watched the earth jumped up at me at two hundred miles per hour. And just as my heart is ready to stop, He would pull the parachute.

You'd think that after so many times that He has proven that He is faithful to provide for all my needs, the fear would go away.

So, I had to learn the lesson, once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

How Do You Know If Any Particular Act is a Sin?

Luke 10:25-29 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Isn't that so typical of what we do? Once we find out something that we must or must not do, we automatically assume that the imperative is not to be applied universally and want to know the boundaries within which the imperative must be applied.

In the same way, after the discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin or not, there where several new discussion threads concerning whether a particular act is a sin or not.

I finally posted a reply after someone asked if masturbation is really a sin or not and many of the responders replied that it was not a sin.

Here is my reply:

In the original Greek text of the Bible, the word sin is translated from the Greek words hamartano and hamartia.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned (hamartano) and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin (hamartia) is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

These words are not religious word. They are secular terms. They are archery terms.

The definition of these words:

hamartano - to miss the mark hamartia - the act of missing the mark

To sin is to miss the mark.

What is the mark that we are trying to hit. What is God's purpose of creating man?

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

Our purpuse is to carry the image of God.

When we fail to truly carry the image of God, we miss the mark.

Romans 3:23 says that we fall short of the glory of God.

Whatever we do that cause us to fall short of the glory of God is sin.

Does masturbation reflect the glory of God or does the act cause us to fall short of the glory of God?

If one wonders if any particular act is a sin or not just ask that question:

Does this act reflect the glory of God or does the act cause one to fall short of the glory of God?

p.s., Shortly after I posted my answer, someone posted the following:

I wish I knew the verse, but there is a verse that says, "If you sin with your eyes cut them out, if you sin with your right hand, cut it off."  Masturbation is indeed adultery, adultery is sin.

To which I replied:

Take your pick:

Matthew 5:28-30

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:43-48

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

That's an interesting take on masturbation that I've never considered.

Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree with you (with a qualification).

Adultery is sex with someone who is not one's spouse if one is married and fornication is any sex if one is single.

So, masturbation would be either adultery or fornication, i.e., a sin.

Also, masturbation would require some form of lusting in one's heart.

The Law, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant.

It has been a while since my last blog entry because I have been involved in a discussion thread on a Christian forum discussing a very important topic. The main topic of the thread concerns homosexuality in Christianity. I am not really that interested in discussing the topic of homosexuality. (See my blog entry entitled "Obsessing over Homosexuality and Other Hot Button Issues", posted on July 2, 2007) However, the way the Bible was being interpreted, in that post, has greater ramifications than the mere topic of homosexuality.

Here is the initial post in the thread:

1. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." Pretty clear huh? Well what about the rest of the Jewish Holiness Code in Leviticus which also:

* permits polygamy

* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,

* bans tattoos

* prohibits eating rare meat

* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

* prohibits cross-breeding livestock

* bans sowing a field with mixed seed

* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood

* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

I am a huge sinner then... I thought this code was totally obsolete? Hebrews 8:13 "In that He says 'a new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

2. Where's the law against lesbian sex? Doesn't exist... hmmm...

3. Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Was it really not that important? Was it even a sin?

The original post was arguing that we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Hebrew 8:13) so we should no longer be obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies that it is an offense against God. As evidence, he listed Old Testament regulations, in the first item of the original post, that are mostly ignored today.

Then, the author, of the original post, made two observations.

The first observation is that the Old Testament regulations explicitly forbid a man from laying with another man like a man would with a woman (Leviticus 18:22) however, they do not explictly forbid a woman from laying with another woman like a man would with a women. It would seem that lesbian sex is not forbidden.

The second observation is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. If we carry the argument that we are no longer obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies it, then homosexuality must then be no longer an offense.

I could have stop the discussion by posting a New Testament reference that forbids homosexuality. However, to do so would allow the broader problem of how the Bible was interpreted to continue to propagate.

The first problem is the interpretation of what IS the Old Covenant that Hebrew 8:13 is talking about. It is a problem because the interpretation of this verse does not conform to its context.

Hebrew 8:3

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The covenant to which Hebrew 8:13 is referring is not the entirety of the Old Testament laws, it is referring to just the system of giving sacrifice found in the Old Testament. This system is no longer needed since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice to save all who believe; Jesus' sacrifice is the basis of the New Covenant.

This chapter of Hebrew is not about abolishing the Law. More particularly, Jesus said the following:

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the context of the homosexuality discussion, I added:

Just because Jesus did not explicitly mentioned homosexuality, does not mean that He thinks it's ok. He came to fulfill every aspect of the Law. By upholding every aspect of the Law, he implicitly upholds the prohibition on homosexuality.

The author, of the original post, wrote back with the following:

So, let's make sure we preach against sex with unclean women, eating unclean meat, wearing certain types of clothing, tattoos, work on the Sabbath... If this justification is correct, why have we then selectively chosen what to follow and what not to follow? Did we feel it was not culturally relevant? I think you (and most Christian doctrine) may be drawing some dangerous conclusions here.

I think you are taking this out of context. Jesus spoke on His most hated sins (adultery, murder, divorce, truthfulness. He spoke much about piety, helping the downtrodden, and love for one's enemies during the entire Sermon. Are you saying by default then that "he really meant" to speak against homosexuality? Matt 5:17-20 is the catch all for all laws then? I think that explanation is devoid of true logic.

With this post, the author, of the original post, added another assumption. The post referred to some sins as more hated by God than others.

God/Jesus hates all sin; one is no more hated by God than another (maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Jesus spoke about different sins to illustrate that we are all sinners. The ones that He pointed out were the ones that some people of that time were committing but weren't willing to admit that they have a problem these sins.

It's not about one sin being worst than another.

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It doesn't matter which sin we commit. Any sin condemns us to death.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's not in keeping the Law that we can be righteous since none of us are able to keep the law.

It is only through the acceptance of Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross in which we can become righteous.

That's the Gospel.

Someone else who was following the discussion asks for clarification with the following:

If all sins are equally wrong then why did you say that homosexuals cannot be Christians? What makes homosexuality any worse than the daily sins we all commit?

I wrote back the following:

To be a Christian, one has to repent: one has to recognize that he/she is a sinner and strives towards not sinning. Of course, all of us continue to sin because we are not perfected until the return of Jesus.

However, if someone refuses to accept the fact that they are sinning, then they did not repent and they are not saved. It does not matter if the sin is lying or adultery or homosexual activities. If one is not willing to recognize their sin as wrong, they did not repent and therefore not saved.

So, if a gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with being gay and he/she continues to sin, they are not saved.

However, if a gay or lesbian says that it is wrong to participate in gay/lesbian activities and is trying to stop sinning, then that person has repented. If that person, then, accepts Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross, then that person is saved.

Frustrated with my answer, the author, of the original post wrote the following:

I'm straight and I ate pork, have had sex with my wife on her period, have a few tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, and wear some pretty ridiculous clothes. And I don't think I've sinned... I guess I'm damned to hell? That my personal relationship with Christ is nothing but a farce?

To which I replied:

Leviticus 11:4-8

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

The dietary laws are about keeping clean. Whether it is for ceremonial cleanliness or health reasons, it doesn't matter. If for ceremonial cleanliness, since Jesus' death paid for all our sins and we no longer participate in sacrifice ceremonies. If for health reasons, our food processing methods clean those food. (Not to mention Acts 10:13-15)

Same with laws concerning having sex during a woman's period.

Leviticus 15:19

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Notice that the person remain unclean only until the evening?

Leviticus 19:26-28

Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

The law against tattoos is about practicing divination or sorcery. If your tattoo isn't related to practicing divination or sorcery, it's not a sin.

My point is that the Old Testament law concerns three types of regulations:

1) Regulations for maintaining physical health

2) Regulations for maintaining spiritual health (acts that condemn us to hell)

3) Regulations for sacrifices to be made to atone for the violation of the second type of regulations

The first type does not concern eternal issues that send us to hell and does not require atonement. Before modern technology and modern medical practices, these regulations were very important. But now, we are free from the problems that they solved.

The second type, however, does concern eternal issues that can send us to hell and requires atonement. No modern technology or modern medical practices can save us from the penalty required to pay for sin. These regulations are very much in play today as they were when the Law was given.

The third type is the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the Christian Gospel:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

p.s., Homosexuality is also explicitly forbidden in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9

(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"abusers of themselves with mankind" was translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means sodomite.

p.p.s., I addressed the lesbian question with the following:

All sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. If single having sex, it's fornication. If married having sex with someone who is not one's spouse, it's adultery.

Since marriage is defined from the start to be between a man and a woman, then two woman can not be married to each other. Thus, if two woman are a sexual relationship, they are either committing fornication or adultery.

To which he replied:

Understood, what about two women that marry in the church? Say in Vermont? They are not having sex outside marriage. What then?

My answer:

A Christian Church must abide by Christian Doctrine. Otherwise it is not a Christian Church. Since Christian Doctrine defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, a church that sanctions the union of two woman does not abide by Christian Doctrine.