Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The difference between supporting gays and accepting same-sex marriage

Published

on

The difference between supporting gays and accepting same-sex marriage

To call it a controversial topic is an understatement, but it’s one that must be addressed. There’s a big difference from a Christian perspective when it comes to accepting homosexuals in the church versus participating in gay marriages.

First and foremost, let’s make sure one thing is very clear. Every human ever created was created by God. It’s one of those statements that may sound simplistic, but let it truly hit home. Judas was created by God. Hitler was created by God. Members of ISIS, Westboro Baptist Church, and the KKK were created by God. As such, they all have had the opportunity to come to Christ and accept Him as their Lord and Savior.

Every human since Adam has sinned. Mother Teresa sinned. David sinned. No matter how righteous a person may strive to be, they have sinned. Every gay or straight person was created by God. Every gay or straight person has sinned. Homosexuals are no different in this regard than any heterosexual who has ever lived.

Let’s make another thing very clear. We are against any government-imposed decrees that tread on the rights of individuals or business owners. This includes anything that pertains to domestic situations. If any couple, whether straight, gay, or even domestic partners in the name of family or friendship, wants to enjoy the governmental rights that the state decrees such as tax benefits, health benefits, or rights normally associated with being married, that’s perfectly fine.

Where the line is drawn is in the holy covenant of marriage. It has always been understood through a Biblical worldview that marriage is the formation of a relationship that replaces the parent-child relationship so that a man and a woman can establish their own family. It’s a chain that does more than the biological continuation of the race. It was a type of relationship that was created to be a blessing.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. – Genesis 2:24 (KJV)

There is a reason that the concept of being “one flesh” is only physically possible between a man and a woman. On an emotional level, it’s possible to create the same concept between people of the same sex; I have no doubt that gay couples love each other. Just as with any sin, our emotions and spiritual well-being are often opposed. Emotionally, we might want to keep a wallet we find on the street with a lot of money in it, but we have to push the temptation back and do the right thing even if we know there is no chance of being caught by anyone… other than God. The power to fight against temptation is within us all.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. – 1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV)

Notice what this verse really says. It doesn’t say that avoiding temptation will make us happy. It doesn’t say that if we overcome temptation that we’ll be more emotionally fulfilled. Escaping temptation can be heartbreaking. It can tear us apart emotionally when we really want something but we fight against it because we know it’s wrong.

It is for this reason that tolerance and the constantly “evolving” worldview that is driving many churches to accept or even perform gay marriages is wrong. Churches should always accept gays (and everyone else) into the congregation, but marriage is a holy covenant between a man and a woman.

A good portion of the law that binds our country and other nations of the world is purely secular. This is by design; God has allowed us to govern our own affairs through a series of general decrees. Leviticus gave the Jewish people at the time certain specific decrees as a baseline for the formation of governments for all time and many of those have become obsolete, replaced by better laws, but the laws He gave to all of mankind have remained universal guides for how we’re supposed to live. The Ten Commandments are all still in play today, for example.

There are themes and established practices in the Bible that do not fall under the category of “laws” but that should guide our actions as individuals as well as govern the influences over man-made laws. The latter should be minimal; even though the Bible talks of charity, taking care of those who cannot care for themselves, and a need to help those who fall onto hard times, the need to tax and spend on programs that aim to accomplish these things must be carefully monitored.

Just as we are told to take care of widows, we are told that marriage is between a man and a woman. One can make an argument that the commandment to honor your mother and father speaks to the concept of heterosexual marriage, but that’s another topic altogether. Even if it’s not a commandment, it’s set forth in the Bible as a way to live and we must honor that.

Gays are given the right to have a relationship with Yeshua and the church should embrace this concept. Governments should allow all of the worldly benefits that have been attached to marriage by man to be enjoyed by anyone, but the actual covenant of marriage itself has been and always will be between a man and a woman. In this regard, no government is allowed to interfere.

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Houston library had Alberto Garza, a registered child sex offender, read stories to children for Drag Queen Storytime

Published

on

Houston library had Alberto Garza a registered child sex offender read stories to children for Drag

Conservatives know the LGBTQ community has their say in most aspects of life in America today. Their political and cultural influence is unquestionable and public organizations jump through hoops to appease the various groups. Many libraries have even embrace “Drag Queen Storytime” as a way to teach tolerance to children by allowing transvestites to read stories to children.

Houston Public Library is one such progressive public organization that has embraced the practice. Unfortunately, they didn’t do anything to protect the children that visit the library by allowing “Tatiana Mala Nina” to read for the children. The problem arose because”Tatiana” is actually Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender.

My Take

Houston Public Library has apologized. Is that really enough? Mistakes happen, but there are certain situations and jobs in which extra special care must be taken. Our public libraries, which are often considered to be truly safe places and popular venues for children to learn, should be able to give a reasonable expectation to parents that registered child sex offenders are not given explicit access to children.

This is gross negligence. I may be in the minority on this one, but this is a terminable offense in my books. Someone’s head should roll.

Keep in mind I rarely call for anyone to be fired for a single offense, but this is literally the worst case scenario for a library administrator. When you give someone access to the children that come to the library, they cannot be convicted child sex offenders. That’s sort of a no-brainer.

Nothing will likely happen beyond the apology, but here’s hoping.

So many exceptions are made for “alternative lifestyles” for the sake of tolerance. But when this tolerance allows a convicted child sex offender to have access to small children, the exceptions have gone way to far. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Muslim leader in Ilhan Omar’s district: ‘When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you…’

Published

on

Muslim leader in Ilhan Omars district When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you

The controversy over Representative Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) antisemtic statements and Tweets have garnered the freshman Congresswoman criticism from some unlikely sources, including many of the Muslim leaders in her own community. They, along with Jewish Democrats in the district that voted for Omar, are uniting to condemn the way Omar has been handling her first few months in office.

“When David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan agrees with you, you’re not doing something right,” said Mohamed Ahmed, a Muslim activist who spoke with a panel of other local leaders.

The Congresswoman came under fire for her statements, but the response from Congress was muted. Rather than focusing on antisemitism or even including her name in an “anti-hate” resolution, they watered it down to include essentially any form of hate and refused to note Omar’s role as the catalyst for the resolution in the first place.

In other words, she got off without even getting a slap in the wrist.

But the words are still out there and thus far the antisemitic Congresswoman seems more concerned about other people’s reactions than whether or not her words were wrong. Apparently, she still sees no problem in what she said, but will refrain from saying them in public for political expediency.

My Take

As noted here before, one of the goals of the Democratic Party is to normalize antisemitism. While everyone seems to be focused on whether or not Omar is sorry for her words, nobody’s wondering why the Democratic Party as a whole seems to be perfectly fine with her feelings.

It’s getting harder and harder for conservative news outlets to speak out against such things. It’s not that there aren’t enough willing to say it, but between social media and search – the two primary traffic drivers for many conservative sites – they have to tone down their news so as not to get banned. This is just one of many reasons it’s so important for our readers to support us so we can continue bringing these stories to light.

The last thing we need is for someone like Ilhan Omar continuing to spread her feelings unabated. It’s clear the Democrats are unwilling to do something about it. Perhaps it’s time to help a moderate Democrat win a primary election against her. She was endorsed by the Justice Democrats, so it’s pretty clear how her radical ideologies emerged.

The world needs to know that Ilhan Omar doesn’t represent American perspectives. More importantly. voters in her district need to know this. We need to keep spreading the truth.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Aotearoa, The Land of the Long White Cloud, needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

Published

on

Aotearoa The Land of the Long White Cloud needs to step back and look at Christchurch objectively

On the 12th of September 2001, the United States began dealing with the unthinkable horror of the day before. After the terror attacks, members of Congress had stood on the Capitol steps and in unison sang God Bless America! Unfortunately, the Kumbaya moment was fleeting. Now in our 18th year after that event that united us, we are more polarized than anytime since the U.S. Civil War.

Day before yesterday, New Zealanders were shocked that their country too could become a target when they knew full well they didn’t deserve it. They had created an open society that welcomes anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere. Diversity they recognized to be their greatest asset.

So who would want to do them harm? A self-proclaimed white supremacist from across the Tasman in neighboring Australia chose the city of Christchurch on New Zealand’s South Island as the optimum place to massacre Muslims in their mosques during their Friday prayers.

I will submit to you that the combination of a soft target and optimum world media attention were significant factors in his decision. Kiwis were not expecting it. But, who would be?

I will not repeat the perpetrator’s name here to deny him the notoriety he seeks. Nor will I go into everything his manifesto may say. But, because New Zealand is focusing on some of his statements to determine why they were targeted and how to prevent such an occurrence in the future, there are some points that we need to consider.

This heinous hate crime and terror attack must be called exactly what it is. It allegedly was done to make a point about anti-immigration and perpetuation of Eurocentric society. However, in my estimation, it has accomplished precisely the antithesis of that stated objective.

The wanton slaughter of 50 Muslims at last count with at least an equal number wounded beyond that has overnight changed the narrative worldwide. American politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to express their solidarity with adherents of Islam against Muslim victimhood in our own country and elsewhere.

As horrendous and unforgivable as the events in Christchurch are, they do not negate the worldwide narrative that reveals thousands of Christians being slain in their churches in Nigeria. Nor Kenyan Christians targeted and killed if they cannot or will not recite the Islamic shahada by neighboring Somalis. Coptic Christians whose ancestors predated Islam in Egypt being persecuted and killed. A Pakistani Christian woman imprisoned for blasphemy by Muslims who refused to drink water from a cup her unclean lips had touched.

None of these other events have gotten significant world attention. But Christchurch is now a household word for everyone everywhere.

As one who has long been in touch with Kiwis for 30 years or more, monitored security threats in their country and throughout the Pacific Basin, having an admiration and respect for the good people of New Zealand, the events that have unfolded recently absolutely break my heart. I am saddened but honestly not totally surprised.

Law enforcement in New Zealand is respected and respectable. They liaise with counterparts throughout Oceania as well as in North America. The problem is New Zealand politicians who carry political correctness to a level that would make American politicians inside the DC Beltway envious.

Radio New Zealand has been my primary source of breaking events in the Pacific for many years. Even when the Pacific Islands Report from the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii ceased publishing a few years ago, they recommended RNZ which often covers even current and former U.S. territories better than our own American media. That’s why I have relied almost exclusively on RNZ for relevant updates regarding events in the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre.

Now let’s go back about 48 hours and consider the developments as they occurred chronologically. Not so much the attack itself but moreover the reactions to it both in New Zealand and here in the United States.

One of the more troubling, though not unanticipated, responses of New Zealand politicians is to censor any kind of online expression which they don’t like. But what is over the line when it comes to free exchange of ideas? Who are the authorities and what are their criteria for censorship? Only the United States has our 1st Amendment protections of free speech and even those are under assault by today’s Democrats.

Politicians in Wellington should understand that censorship will only further polarize their own citizens. If they do not have a legal conduit to share their beliefs in social media, what extra-legal means will they find? Censorship invariably creates more problems than it solves.

The other to be expected knee-jerk reaction of liberal politicians is gun control. The perpetrator of Christchurch himself declared that he wanted to cause a 2nd Amendment rift here in the United States over this very issue. This is another indication that the Aussie was not just attacking New Zealand, but the USA and the world. Certainly not just Muslims ~ they were just a convenient scapegoat.

Once they have banned guns, will they turn their attention to box cutters, pressure cookers, knives and vehicles that run people down? Where does it stop? The gun does not pull its own trigger. The evil in the gunman’s heart is the problem that nobody seems to want to address.

New Zealand Police originally indicated as reported by media sources that multiple gunmen were believed involved. There were suggestions of a cell of perhaps 3 to 5 people and even allegations that perhaps 10 or more could have been implicated. One RNZ report, even without detail, lent suspicion that a nearby hospital was also targeted.

Within 24 hours or so after the original incident, a 180° turn has been made and the perpetrator is said to have acted alone. So, did somebody in authority over-react to begin with? Or, are there other suspects still at large that they don’t want to talk about?

Why did they suggest Jews not attend their own Sabbath Services in their synagogues the day after the attack on Muslim mosques? If the perpetrator is in custody and if Muslims were the only object of his hatred, then protecting Jewish synagogues makes no sense whatsoever if there was no such threat.

“The national security threat level has been increased from low to high for the first time in NZ’s history.” A related search was reportedly conducted 225 miles from Christchurch in Dunedin. All this for a lone perpetrator now in custody?

Even here in Hawaii, the Honolulu Police Department and the FBI reportedly contacted the Muslim mosque in Manoa to express their solidarity and to ensure additional security measures would be implemented. Nothing in the scenario in Christchurch suggests that a mosque near the University of Hawaii would become such a target.

A more objective analysis might be that retaliation could be taken to avenge the attack in New Zealand. But I haven’t seen any warning that synagogues and/or churches here in Hawaii should be on the alert. So why alert the mosque if they had no specific threat information?

Christchurch has under 1/4 the population of Auckland. The city name likely figures into its selection for this atrocity. Be it anti-Muslim or false flag, somebody wants to tear NZ apart.

The people to whom the perpetrator allegedly attributes his inspiration seem to totally run the gamut of the political and ethnic spectrum from U.S. President Donald Trump to Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik to black American conservative Candace Owens. But he’s a white supremacist, right? Let’s look a little further into that as well.

“The attack had been planned for two years and … New Zealand was not the original choice for the attack. [The perpetrator] chose firearms for the affect [sic] it would have on … the politics of United States.”

“In the post, the accused said he was visiting Pakistan for the first time. He called it an incredible place filled with the most earnest, kind hearted and hospitable people in the world.” This simply does not compute! Persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is among the worst anywhere on the planet. How does this contribute to the suspect becoming a white supremacist who slaughters Muslims?

Whenever a Muslim kills Christians, everybody wants to claim it’s due to mental illness and not anything to do with Islam. But such conflicting statements by the man who shed so much blood in Christchurch deserve to be looked at from a psychological and mental perspective. Why did he go to Pakistan and view it through rose-colored lenses? White supremacy appears more of a crutch to fulfill his own perverted fantasies.

It’s more than just irony that the mosque attack occurred in a city named Christchurch. It’s probably deliberate. An alleged white supremacist chose such a locale. So could a Muslim offended by the city name. In this, they’d have common cause. Both wonder why Muslims chose to live there.

In this time of shock and introspection, Kiwis are asking how could such hatred be spawned by someone in their midst. But, in fact, it was not someone who developed these views in their midst. It was a man from another country who chose their country as a soft target for maximum media exposure and global impact.

New Zealanders need to realize that love and acceptance of others and a strong defense and security posture are not mutually exclusive concepts. There is absolutely nothing any of us can do to preclude someone with evil in their heart from wanting to do us harm. We have to be proactive in anticipating threats and able to intervene and stop the act before it occurs.

Acceptance of others is never unconditional. It must be conditioned upon their willingness to reciprocate and not seek to impose their will upon us or to do us harm in any way. That applies to white supremacists. That applies also to jihadis. Both are a danger to decent freedom-loving people.

It is not surprising to read reports of panic buying of firearms in New Zealand before the government can impose draconian gun control measures. Once again, as with censorship, you do not want to further polarize your nation. The shooter in Christchurch wanted to tear your country and my own country apart. We must not let such evil intentions and actions succeed. If you prohibit free speech and prevent people from being able to defend themselves, you are just sowing the seeds of future discontent.

While I’m tempted to outline the prevailing world situation in which Christians are the persecuted targets in countries ruled by either Islam or Communism, we shall let just two brief anecdotes suffice in this context.

2017 Palm Sunday church bombings in Alexandria [Egypt] killed 45 people and was all but ignored by the Western media and politicians. That was just two years ago. But you can rest assured Christchurch will not disappear from public consciousness that quickly. More correctly, a Muslim on Christian attack in Egypt never really attracted any real attention to begin with. As with the genocide in Nigeria, the world just yawns.

An article dated today published by Gatestone Institute is entitled, Iran Inches Closer to its Goal: “Wipe Israel off the Map”. This helps demonstrate that Islam is more often the perpetrator rather than the victim. NZ’s neighborhood is far safer than Israel’s, but on the same planet!

I have focused mostly today on the reaction within New Zealand itself. There will be repercussions in the United States as well. As I mentioned, our own politicians are jumping on the bandwagon to paint Muslims as the victim of hate crimes. But, Christchurch was both an aberration and a total exception to the rule of what has been going on for at least a generation all over the world.

This has been just a snapshot of a developing story. Future reports, particularly actions taken by New Zealand authorities in the wake of Christchurch (which unfortunately may become a one word symbol of terror), will influence interpretations for sure and understanding if we’re lucky.

I don’t wish to offend anyone, certainly not our great Kiwi friends, but I must take that risk in order to admonish Aotearoa to emerge from its cocoon. There is no neutrality in the face of evil which has many masks. Be strong!

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report