Does Deuteronomy 23: 20 on the Issue of "Usury" Prove that the Bible Favors Jews over Non-Jews?

" Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

(Deut. 23: 20, KJV)

 

Tonight I met two middle aged men downtown. We had quite a lively discussion about injustices the government and society at large heap upon those with disabilities, and about why these gentlemen discredit the Bible? According to one of these middle aged men, by the name of Calvin, the Word of God can't be trusted because it was written by a bunch of fascist Jews who own the banks that control everything. Also, The Bible can't be trusted because the Roman Catholic Church were responsible for putting together the Word of God as we have it today and is used to control the masses.  

So naturally, I asked him to prove his point by presenting to me evidence to why I should believe his outrageous claim. So he quoted to me two possible passages of Scripture taken from Deuteronomy 23: 28-29 or 28: 28-29 that speaks about how Jews were allowed to exploit non-Jews by charging them "usury" (interest). Since I had a small Bible on me, I looked up the passages Calvin had cited to me. The first thing I noticed was that verses 28-29 does not even exist in Deuteronomy 23, for it ends at verse 25! The actual verses that speaks about "usury" is verses 19-20. Secondly, he said the Deuteronomy passage is the first mention of "usury" in the Bible. This of course is false. The first mention of "usury" in the Bible is found in Exodus 22: 25. The third thing I noticed was the passage he mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28-29 had nothing to do with "usury." Actually, from what he shared with me about the hardships he had  endured in life due to his disability and his apparent rebellion and animosity towards God and His Word made me wonder if the Lord was rebuking Calvin through Deuteronomy 28: 28-29 that I had read to him.  

Alexander Cruden, the author of Cruden's Complete Concordance defines "usury" as follows:

 

"By usury is generally understood in the Bible any interest on a loan, whether in money or in wheat or other commodities. Modern usage has confined the meaning of the word to an unlawful interest.  

The law of God prohibits rigorous imposing of interest or exacting it, or a return of a loan without regard to the condition of the borrower; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect of gain by employing the borrowed goods. 

The Hebrews were plainly commanded  in Ex. 22: 25, etc., not to receive interest for money from any that borrowed for necessity, as in the case in Neh. 5: 5, 7."[1]

 

The word "usury" is used 17 times throughout the Bible. 15 times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New Testament according to Cruden's Concordance. (See Ex. 22: 25; Lev. 25: 36-37; Deut. 23: 19-20; Neh. 5: 7, 10; Psalm 15: 5; Prov. 28: 8; Isa. 24: 2; Jer. 15: 10; Ezek. 18: 8, 17, 13; 22: 12; Matt. 25: 27; Luke 19: 23.) The specific verse in question that Calvin quotes to demonize Jews is Deut. 23: 19-20. Verse 20 is the primary passage under question. It reads as follows: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." (KJV). 

 The Jew was the 'lender' while the stranger was the 'debtor.' The stranger was required in the agreed amount owed to pay interest as well to the Jewish lender for the money or item borrowed. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines two words in relation to the lender and the one who borrows as follows. The Jew who is a lender is a usurer, "one that lends money esp. at an exorbitant rate." The Jew was required to charge usury that was only fair and reasonable. He was not to over charge interest to the stranger. By the time the New Testament era came, the infamous tax collectors were notorious for charging outrageous amounts of interest. Therefore they were hated by the people of that day. Now the borrower was charged usury. The term means "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." 

In Matthew Poole's Commentary, he explains why the Jews were allowed to charge "usury" to strangers. He writes as follows:

 

"Ver. 20.  Unto a stranger, i.e. to a person of any other nation, for so that word is generally used, and therefore they who restrain it to the cursed Canaanitish nations seem to do so without any solid or sufficient grounds. And though the word brother is ofttimes used in a general sense for every man, yet I think I may affirm that wheresoever the words brother and stranger are opposed in the Jewish law, the brother signifies the Israelite only, and the stranger signifies any person of what nation or religion soever, whether proselyted to the Jewish religion or not, and so it seems to be meant here. And the reason why usury is permitted to a stranger, not to an Israelite, may seem to be this, because the Israelites generally employed themselves in the management of land and cattle, and therefore could not make any advantage of borrowed money to balance the use they should pay for it; and consequently it may be presumed that they would not borrow money upon use, but for want and poverty, and in that case, and principally for that reason, usury seems to be forbidden to them, as may be thought from Le 25:35,36. But the strangers made use of their money in way of trade and traffic with the Israelites, which was more gainful, and could much better bear the burden of usury, and reap advantage from money so borrowed; and these strangers here spoken of are supposed to be competently rich, and not poor, as may plainly appear by comparing this place with Le 25:35,36, where they are no less forbidden to take usury of a stranger than of a brother, in case of poverty."[2]

 

Authors Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe puts it this way for why Jews could be exempt from being charged usury, whereas Jews could charge usury to strangers.

 

"Of course, usury was not forbidden with strangers (non-Jews), but only with brothers (other Jews). If this seems partial, it is only because the laws forbidding usury on the poor (or one's brothers) were a divinely enjoined act of benevolence, not strictly a matter of business. When it comes to doing business, one is entitled to a reasonable profit on his investment. Since the risk of loss (from non-payment) must be covered, it is just to pay the investor an appropriate amount for his risk."[3]

 

After reading through all 17 passages of Scripture on "usury" in context with Deuteronomy 23: 20 there is nothing indicating unjust partial treatment of Jews over non-Jews. Unless Calvin is able to present indisputable evidence to support his case against the so called accusation he is leveling Against God's Word, he really doesn't have a valid case at all.   

My heart goes out to Calvin in the struggles he is going through in regards to his disability, but that does not in no way excuse him from attacking God's Word without warrant. The only other argument he tried to present was that the Book of Revelations was full of God's wrath and vengeance. That God was a mean tyrant. He fails to understand why the Book of Revelations speaks of God's judgment and wrath. He doesn't realize that God's judgment and wrath comes upon mankind in the last day because of their sin and rebellion against God.

---

[1] Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Complete Concordance, (Dugan Publishers Inc., Gordonsville, TN, Revised 1986), pg. 717.

[2] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole's Commentary, (Power BibleCD 5. 2), Deut. 23: 20.

[3] Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2008), pgs. 128-129.

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

by Mark Escalera

Those who hold to a secular, humanistic worldview have a penchant for being inconsistent. However, they are normally consistently inconsistent. Their answers have to change to suit their sinful lifestyles, and when the answers provide or offer tolerance to all (except for true believers), those answers have to change again just like the faulty science or research they want to appeal to in order to try and prove why they are the way they are.

One question that is often asked though is, “When did YOU choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?” They ask what they feel is the perfect question knowing that the answer given will quantify their own sin, grant them the right to be intolerant towards true Christians, and free themselves from the bonds of the laws of God.

So, let’s look at this question. When did I choose my sexual orientation? The question itself is wrong and is completely predicated on the removal of God from the equation.

If we are but a mere by-product of millions of years of evolution, then there would certainly be no “choices” in aspects of life such as sexual orientation and morality. Instead, my DNA or genes would influence who I was. It would then have an impact on my upbringing, environment, education, government, home life, etc., etc. The reason is because Darwinian evolution believes in the continued improvement and betterment of the species of animal known as man.

Thus, if I am merely an animal and one that is continuously evolving, I would be forced to accept that whether I was good or bad would be based on my DNA. This is why Hitler believed he was right to exterminate all peoples that he did not like. He was living out his beliefs.

It is this reason why Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood can operate with impunity in the wanton murder of millions of babies in the mother’s womb. They are acting out the logical conclusions of their belief. Evolution makes us better and abortion simply weeds out the weak and inconsequential in their minds.

Therefore, if I am but an evolutionary blip, then I cannot choose. I could no more choose who I want to have sex with than what morals I wanted to practice. In other words, if my evolutionary genes did not offer me the ability to make moral choices, I could kill with no conscience, or assault another person, and should have the freedom to do so.

After all, we do not kill animals that use their base instincts to kill or assault another animal, so why should we do this with human animals? There must be a level of consistency if we are going to apply evolutionary beliefs and still say that how I live or who I sleep with is not a choice.

However, there is another option. The option has a name and He is God. He alone is God and He will not give His glory to another. He demands worship and praise from all of creation, including man. This is the only God of the Bible.

This belief found in the pages of Scripture approaches the creation of man, not from the aspect of evolution, but from the aspect that God is Who He says He is and that He did what He says He did.
This belief is to be reflected in every aspect of every person who has ever lived. Sadly, sin entered the equation when Adam willfully and deliberately disobeyed God. When sin entered the world, it was passed to all of Adam & Eve’s children and their descendants.

Everything that God made in the beginning was good and with no imperfections. Even Satan was created as Lucifer and he was the highest of all the angelic beings. He worshiped at the foot of the throne of God and sang the praises of God. But pride entered his heart and he was cast from heaven.

He fell to earth and chose to deceive humanity into thinking they could be like God and know good and evil. Everything that God made Satan has tried over and over to make an evil counterpart. For example, God created marriage between one man and one woman until death parts them, but Satan quickly introduced polygamy, sex with children, bestiality, living together outside of marriage and homosexuality, and then persuaded mankind that these would be just as acceptable as long as they were simply committed to a “loving” relationship.

While DNA continues to grow weaker and more diluted from one generation to another, the one constant is that sin remains. It totally engulfs a person and makes them slaves to their depraved nature.

In one sense, man does not choose to make wise and good decisions because he is at enmity with God. Thus a person who practices sin is simply living out what is in their heart. A person can be just as sinful as a heterosexual as a person can be who is a homosexual. Satan seeks to persuade mankind that evolution is the answer and that God’s laws are not the moral basis of how the world is run.

However, there are morals and there are absolutes. God did not create but two genders – male and female. Not man, but God created the institution of marriage, thus He alone has the right to set the rules – one man and one woman for life. Not man, but God created government, thus He alone has the right to demand the rules be honored and obeyed.

In conclusion, this brings us back to the question of when did I choose my sexual orientation. I did not choose because there is nothing to choose. God who sets the rules made me a male. Therefore, He did the choosing for me. He instilled in my heart the desire to marry a woman who would be my companion.

The “choice” that I have is whether I am going to honor the God who created me and live according to what He made me, OR, I can disobey, dishonor, and show my hatred for the Creator by living in a way that evidences my rebellion. Males are designed by God to be the counterpart to females. God did not create males to have sexual relationships with other males, nor did He create females to have sexual relationships with other females.

Further, God did not create man to live outside the boundary of His laws. This means that God established the morals. We do not kill because God said do not kill. We do not commit adultery because God said do not commit adultery. We do not steal because God said do not steal.

As a human being, I am created in the image of God. I am NOT a by-product of evolution or an evolutionary process. I am NOT free to live any way that I want in opposition to God without being willing to pay the price for my sin and folly. I am bound by my conscience that was placed in me by God. I am bound by His laws because God is the giver of all that pertains to morality. I cannot and would not have any morals apart from God giving them because the theory of evolution does not lean towards the production of morality. Morals cannot appear out of thin air, there must be an Originator.

So, to answer from a Biblical perspective – when did I choose my sexual orientation? I did not choose because God made me a male. This means I am hardwired in every way to respond to a female. God does not make mistakes. If a male wants to respond to another male, or a female to a female, or a human to an animal, they can do so, but not because God created them to do so, but because Satan who hates mankind, and hates God even more, has duped mankind into believing that we were born in a certain way and that we do not have to obey God.

Therefore, the real question that must be answered has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is about God. A person in the LGBT community can try to use this question to prove who they are, but they can only do so by appealing to evolution and not God.

The real questions that humanity faces are really about God. Is He real or is He but a figment of a deluded segment of mankind? If He is real, then His laws are just as real and we are bound to obey them or pay the price.

If He is but a figment, then I fear for the world because rape, assault, murder, and sexual perversions will continue and grow worse. Man left to himself will never be good because evolution does not permit man to be good. It requires him to do whatever is necessary to fulfill the mantra of the survival of the fittest.

So, here are the “choices” each reader has to make. Do you obey God or do you obey Satan? Do you believe you are here through random mutations and thus incapable of choosing either your morality or your sexual orientation, or do you believe that God created you in the very image of God?

To be consistent, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in God and believe in evolution. You cannot obey God and obey Satan. You cannot be a good moral person and be a person who holds to no absolute truths. You cannot be a follower of Christ and be a person who willfully breaks His laws.

If you realize in any way that you have hope in something that provides no hope, then I have some additional information that you might like to read.

Before time began, God purposed in Himself that He would provide a means of restoring fellowship with fallen man. He desires to have fellowship just as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden, but He cannot stand to look upon sin. In addition, He told Adam and Eve that if they sinned, they would surely die.

This created a dilemma. How could a holy God look upon sinful man and have that fellowship restored? The answer is so simple that even a child can come to the point where they believe in the truth of God’s Word.

When the time was right (Galatians 4:4), God the Son laid aside His glory and took upon Himself human flesh and became a man (Philippians 2). Coming to this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life. He did not sin, nor could He sin. John the Baptist saw Him coming across the hills of Judea and said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.”

This means that Jesus Christ was willing to fulfill the law in its entirety and to also be the substitutionary atonement for our sins. In order to be able to face God, this substitution means that something or somebody had to die in our place and atone for the wrath of God. So, Jesus Christ went to the cross of Calvary and there took our sin upon Himself and suffered the entire wrath of God so that we do not have to do so if we but confess and repent of our sin while placing our faith in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.

2 Corinthians 5:21 sums up the wonder of this message. “For our sake (humans) He (God the Father) made Him (Jesus Christ) to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in Him (Jesus Christ – God the Son) we (humans) might become the righteousness of God.” What is a further wonder is that the Bible states clearly that WHOEVER wants to come to Christ may come. He will make you a brand new creation and you will no longer be a slave to your sin.

The Trouble with Feminism Today

I want to start this blog by saying that I am not against women.  I love women! What I am against, is radical feminism and its ideology it promotes today. I especially am against its underlying messages that women are still oppressed today by men, and that women have a sense of entitlement, or that men are inferior to women and so on.

 I began my research into the topic of Feminism a few weeks ago. My research has uncovered quite a bit of information of misandry and blatant sexism being propagated and promoted by the media every where. This lead me to such websites and blogsites belonging to advocates of the Men’s Rights Movement where they have many articles and videos that exposes the hypocrisy of Feminism and how it has damaged today’s modern society, the primary victims being men. Over and over again, I see women being portrayed as victims and men being portrayed as the perpetrators.

I have watched some youtube videos posted by leaders of the MRM that were well researched in exposing Feminism. Also, I have read many articles by them as well. What I found most interesting was when I clicked on the reference cited, it lead me to either a completely different website unrelated to the reference documented, or to the actual website that told me the information I was looking for was either deleted or removed from that particular website. This happened too many times for me to discount this as a coincidence. This of course raised some questions in my mind as follows: Why was it removed? What was the reason for the website  to remove or delete such information? What are they trying to hide?  

I believe the answer to such questions is no doubt found in the fact that such websites have been either threatened or pressured by radical feminists to delete or remove such information that incriminates feminist propaganda.  Usually this will happen right after such information has been cited from the said website and made public. Perhaps some who read this may disagree with my assessment. However, it is a known fact that feminists who oppose the information made public by the Men's Rights groups often bully and pressure such websites to remove such statistics and facts that does not support feminist propaganda.

ARE MEN MORE VIOLENT THAN WOMEN?

A couple weeks ago I had posted a youtube video entitled "A Feminist's Dream Date." The video was satirical humour and was not to be taken seriously. But that did not stop a Facebook acquaintance from being offended by the video. She was a feminist through and through. Anyway, we ended up debating the issue about Domestic Violence. Typical of feminist propaganda she cited the false statistics that make men out to be the primary perpetrators of Domestic Violence. This is what she said to me in one of her responses:

"There are still many inequalities that are part of the cultural norm. Sexual assault and domestic violence happen to women at least nine out of ten times, men being the other one out of ten, and this happens every day to women. I am a victim of domestic violence myself. And economically, women earn about 7.5 to 8 cents to every dollar that a woman makes. These are facts. There are many, many other issues too of degradation and violation, oppression and discrimination women face every day. Feminism is a social theory that upholds the inequality still prevalent in social norms. The information is out there, academically, professionally, on the street, on social media, or wherever you want to look."

Yes, I don't doubt the information is out there to support her view on domestic violence. However, the statistics she shared in her above comment is nothing more than feminist propaganda that makes women out to be the victims and men to be the perpetrators. Such bias statistics is not based off of real scientific research, but is based on faulty feminist studies that purposefully demonizes men as the primary perpetrators of domestic violence. Feminists ignore real scientific research studies that have revealed that women are just as guilty of domestic violence as men are.  Here below is one of my responses back to her:

"Faye, I know the Family Violence Report was taken from the “Family of Men Support Society.” I am not denying that. It has been mentioned a couple of times in my responses to you. I didn’t think I needed to actually tell you where I got the report, since it is clearly quoted in the link mentioned a couple times in my responses for you to see.  As for the “Family Violence Report” being written from another source? No, it was written from the “Family of Men Support Society” themselves. Now as for saying “I need to do my research and stop being one sided.” I assure you, I have been doing just that. Why do you think I question the Statistics you mentioned. It is feminist propaganda designed to make women look like the victims and men like the violent perpetrators. I have taken the time to consider a few statistics mentioned online. The one you had mentioned, “Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile” on page 35, I looked at the “Statistics Canada; Juristat 85-002-XIE, Vol. 27, no. 4” as well, along with another Canadian one the “Gender Differences in Police-Reported Violent Crime in Canada, 2008.” And finally the "Resolution: Regarding the UN Study on Violence against Women, Nov. 4, 2006." Which was a report put together by Mark Rosenthal and supported by 116 Equal Rights groups around the world and submitted to the UN. What I found interesting about these reports was that none of them gave the 90 to 95% Domestic Violence that men supposedly perpetrate against women as feminist so often claim, though I can tell they were heavily influenced by feminism in primarily giving high numbers to the males being the perpetrators. Even if some of the reports say 90% of women suffer violence at the hands of men only goes to show their bias against men, and how their information is misleading the public. When many other scientific studies say the opposite. Here below, are the four reports I had looked at in a little more detail.

(1.) The “Family Violence in Canada” report you quoted was correct. It did say: "Over the past 30 years, the rate of spousal homicides against females has consistently been about three to four times higher than that for males." I do not believe that "Family Violence in Canada Report" you quoted was the one that "Family of Men Support Society" got their info from. Did you catch that Faye, not 9 times more, as you suggested in an earlier response to me, but rather 3 times more.

(2.)  However, the “Statistics Canada; Juristat, Vol. 27, no. 4” contradicted that report by giving this one:  “About 7% of women and 6% of men across the country are the victims of Domestic violence at the hands of a current or former spouse or common-law partner according to results from the 2004 GSS on Victimization” Page 2. This one I believe to be more in keeping with the facts.

(3.)Then there is the "Gender Differences, 2008" report from the Police, which again contradict feminist propaganda: "Police-report data show that in 2008, the rate of violent victimization for female and male victims was comparable, 1, 155 and 1, 150 per 100, 000 population, respectively (Table 1, Table 2). Moreover, throughout the preceding 5-year period from 2004 to 2008, the rates of violent victimization for men and women remained relatively stable (Chart 1)." pages 6-7. This again is quite different then the statistics you gave in the first report and in your responses to me. As you can see, men suffer from violence just as much as women do, whether it be at the hands of men or women.

(4.) Regarding the UN study on violence against women gave this interesting information: "5. Whereas, a compilation of 195 scientific studies of partner violence concludes, “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with spouses or male partners,” 6. Whereas, according to a Statistics Canada report, 7% of women and 6% of men report violence by a current or previous partner in the previous five years. 7. Whereas, according to a recent international study of severe violence among dating couples, 55% was mutual violence, 16% was male-only, and 29% of violence was female-only." For women in the past 50 to 100 years ago, female spousal abuse was near non-existent as far as we know. For it to be near equal to male spousal abuse today, female spousal abuse has skyrocketed by the 100s in percentage.  That is a massive explosion in female spousal abuse!  This is what is not being honestly reported by the so called experts and professionals that you talk about Faye. The question can be asked "Why?"

Now as to sexual assault and abuse. I don't doubt that women suffer more at the hands of men than men do at the hands of women. Now that's not to say men do not suffer as much sexual abuse as women do. One study said that men are 3 or 4 (more or less) times more likely to not report sexual abuse to the authorities as women do. This also applies to domestic violence as well.

Perhaps one of the most devastating blows that can be given to the Feminist myth that men are more violent than women can bee seen in Dr. Martin S. Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography. Follow the link here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm "

I know my response to my friend above was quite lengthy, but I believe necessary to show my point about how feminism is against men. It promotes hatred, sexism, and bigotry against men in today's society.

 WHO GAINS THE MOST IN DIVORCE COURT?

In divorce court women are almost always favored over the man. A recent book written by former feminist Dr. Helen Smith, entitle “Men on Strike” writes...

 

 



The Trouble with Offending Others Today

I came across a handful of pithy quotes from an unknown author on the topic of offending others. They are as follows: "Being offended doesn't make you right," "If you take things personally, you will feel offended for the rest of your life," "Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your emotions, so everyone else should do it for you." This last quote seems to say it best, "The world would be a better place if people would spend more time thinking and learning and less time being offended."



(Lord willing, I will continue this blog article and complete it in the near future).

The Mystery of Two Becoming One Flesh

        “Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.”

(Genesis 2: 23, KJV).

 

This statement by Adam was quite profound. He did not say this of any animal in all of God’s creation; whether in the sky, or in the sea, or on the land. The phrase “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh” is a very intimate phrase only used here once in the Bible. It is used in the context of Eve’s relationship to Adam. This also refers to all men and women and their marital relationship with one another (see 2: 24). There is five specific ways this unique group of words applies.

1. First it applies to Adam and Eve in the context that Eve came from Adam (see Gen. 2: 23-24).
2. Second, it applies to the marital union between man and a woman, “the two shall become one flesh” (2: 24).
3. Third, it applies to siblings (brothers and sisters), which is the result of the marriage union between a man and woman, “be fruitful and multiply” (see Gen. 1:  28).
4. Fourth, it applies to all people in their biological relationship to one another from a creative stand point. He “hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17: 26).
5. Fifth, and last of all, it applies to the Church, for by the blood of Christ we all became brothers and sisters in the Lord through our relationship with Christ.

Here's a poem written by an unknown author who beautifully captures in a small way the intimacy of a man and a woman.

 



The Hypocrisy of the LGBT Community

by Mark Escalera - The Jungle Missionary

A few thoughts to consider for the thoughtful reader of DefCon –

 

1. Ok, for those who think to the contrary of the Bible, I would like to call your bluff in no uncertain terms. Please provide indisputable PROOF from the scientific and medical communities that people are born transgender or as homosexuals or lesbians, etc. THEORIES or PRESUPPOSITIONS based on psychology does not count. It must be based on DNA, genetics, things that can be proven in a lab or research facility.

2. For those who think that God "MADE" a mistake when He made you, I would encourage you to read the truth of Scriptures. The same holds true to any who think that ALL or ANY sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman is acceptable. John 3:36 makes it clear as to God's perspective on those who willfully abide in their sin and abomination. "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son will not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." Those who are children of God will obey the commands of Scripture, but those who choose their own paths are clearly bent on destruction AND the wrath of God does abide on them until salvation takes place. The bottom line is that God does NOT make mistakes and He does not create that which would contradict the principles and truths found in His Word (the Holy Scriptures).

3. I share with those who read that there is no hatred for any who live in a lifestyle that is contrary to God. It is NOT up to me to bring condemnation of eternal punishment. If I am to follow the truth of Scripture, I must learn to 1) love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and the 2) is to love my neighbor as myself. However, it is NOT loving if I fail to warn you that there is a high price to pay one day for choosing a path or lifestyle that is in contradiction to the character of the Holy God. Some who read might PRESUME upon my character and belief that I hate you and others who do not live like I do. That is unfounded and is based purely on the speculation of how you THINK others should believe and how you THINK others should allow you to practice with no lack of tolerance apart from intolerance towards "bigots" and "hate-mongers" like me. I look forward to seeing your "PROOF."

4. So, just to clarify, a person can HATE the actions of those who choose to pray aloud to God in school or a public place but that person probably would say nothing if it was a Muslim student doing it. Further, you can hate prayer and find it an affront or grievance to you, but you would have NO problem fully endorsing that same person's right to speak if they choose to spew filthy, vulgar language or even speak aloud of his or her ability to practice deviant lifestyles. Absolutely amazing! So, you can HATE as long as you get your way, but if I HATE that which is contrary to the Scriptures, I am condemned as a bigot and I am judging others. So, exactly, how does this logic work again???

5. The problem is that the world is trying to dictate new standards of morality based on what suits the depravity of the human heart. You cannot have morals without the God who gave and created the morals to begin with. It is the same God who created one man and one woman and instituted marriage between those two. The reality is that the LGBT agenda is an abomination before God and will always be so. Sadly, a small very vocal minority are trying to bully the world into accepting perverted lifestyles. By the way, Disney has long sought to subtly and now openly promote the homosexual agenda. The homosexual agenda will never be content with "marriage" between two of the same sex. They are after our children. We are headed the way of Rome and will be brought to our knees just as Rome was for her wickedness.

6. By the way, if homosexuality or lesbianism is "normal" and supposedly created by God, why in each relationship do you have one that acts the part of a male and one a female? God created one man and one woman and commanded them to multiply and fill the earth. Interesting that God did not give the ability to procreate between two men or two women, and biology and science cannot change that. Notice I did not mention "gay" sex. I spoke of the irony of how in any relationship between two men, one will seek to be effeminate (or the wife), while with two lesbians, one will seek to dominate and play a masculine role.

7. God states that ALL AND ANY sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is an abomination before Him. God also tells us that the hearts of ALL men and women are evil. Romans 3 states that there is nobody who is good, not even one. They have all gone out of the way in their depravity. There does not need to be any additional verses regarding a person who thinks they were born in the wrong type of body. To hold to this is ultimately stating that God makes mistakes. Further, the Bible is clear that it is not a particular sin that will send people to hell, but the one of unbelief. Belief in God resulting in salvation only comes when a person repents and confesses their sin to God and then places their faith in Christ alone for their salvation. That belief then is followed by a willing obedience to the commands of Christ.

8. Despite the fact that many will studiously avoid my thoughts and questions, I will share that God commands all men to repent. The need for repentance is not dependent on one's choice of sex or lifestyle. It is based solely on the fact that man is separated by his very nature from a holy God. What would God say to a transgender person? He tells them to repent and that today is the day of salvation for all who come in faith in Jesus Christ. The transgender equality issue is one that seeks to erode what God has created. To force those choices upon the general public, particularly within the education system, is foolishness and stupidity at best, and at worst, only further undermines the differences between male and female as created by God.

The Trouble with Churches Today

This topic I am going to write in this blog is not new. I have written about it a few times in the past. Hopefully I can write something knew to think about and to challenge us as believers in Christ to be the "solution" rather than the "problem" for the present local Church. To be continued...