Examining Homosexual Myths

Word Coming From God - Bible sm

I found this post on the Pilgrim Passing blog entitled, “Examining Homosexual Myths”. This is a post of two essays that even handily refutes many of the claims of homosexual activists. The essays use a non-confrontational approach which is excellent because I am often accused of a confrontational approach on posts confronting the homosexual agenda. Hence I am cross posting this on my blogs. Thanks for the good work Sean.


JRH 5/10/12

Please Support NCCR


Examining Homosexual Myths


Posted by Sean, son of John


Pilgrim Passing


This is a two-part article; the first part discusses the lie that Homosexuality is genetic and therefore the Homosexual is unable to opt out of their lifestyle.

The second article examines and debunks some of the major myths concerning Homosexuality which are being fostered upon North American society by
the Homosexual Agenda‘s influence in the educational system, the mainstream media, and the entertainment industries.


Is It Possible for Homosexuals to Change?


By Sue Bohlin



Mike {1} was marching in a Gay Pride parade when God got a hold of him. He had been high for four days and his “buzz” suddenly evaporated as he heard a voice in his head say, “You don’t have to live like this.” He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was God offering him a way out. He put down his Gay Pride sign, left the parade, sat down in a nearby stairwell, and repented of his rebellion.

He gave his heart to Jesus Christ and starting walking out of homosexuality that day. Today, several years later, he is married with a child, and living a very different kind of life. Not just on the outside; his heart was changed from the inside out.


Randy was on a self-destructive path of drug and alcohol abuse and homosexual activity. When he told his mother he was gay, she threw him out of the house, and the only place he could find belonging, safety, and identity was the gay community. As he spent more and more time “escaping” the pain in his life through sex and alcohol, he began to realize how bad his life was. He wanted to die but God had something else in mind.


Randy was invited to a Bible study where he met a man who had left the gay lifestyle and was living a changed life. For the first time he honestly called out and said, “God, please help me.”


One of his friends became a Christian. He asked her about homosexuality and was angered by her initial response. She said, “I now believe it is a sin–but God wouldn’t call it a sin if there weren’t something better.” Randy eventually realized that he was a sinner who needed God’s love and grace, and in 1992 he trusted Christ as his Savior. Two months later, he was led to Living Hope, an organization that helps people walk out of homosexuality through an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. He left his homosexual identity behind and embraced his true identity as a child of God, committed to holiness and purity. Randy is now director of that ministry and is helping others walk out of homosexuality. He’s not perfect, he’s still growing . . . just like me and every other Christian I know. But the “something better” God had in mind for him is an intimacy with Christ that is breathtaking.

Randy brings glory to God every day of his life by living out the abiding truth that change is possible.


Stories of Women
Carol grew up in a religious home with parents whose standards were too strict to allow her to please them. But she was smart, and a good student, and her teachers gave her the affirmation and encouragement her heart longed for. She developed very strong bonds with her teachers, some of which became profound emotional dependencies.


In graduate school, she was hit by the unexpected pain of loneliness and emptiness. Carol got into an intense relationship with a married woman, facing completely new temptations. She was totally unprepared to resist the strength of same-gender attraction, and quickly found herself emotionally and physically involved in a relationship she couldn’t believe was happening. Now she was not only emotionally needy, she was shackled by deep shame, woundedness, and guilt.


A friend told her about a ministry to those dealing with same-sex attraction, and it was like finding a door to another world. Through the support she found there, Carol was challenged to identify the lies of Satan which she had believed her whole life and replace them with the truth of Scripture. God is renewing her mind, meeting her deep heart-needs, and bringing her to a place of freedom and hope.


Diane’s story is different. She spent eighteen years in a committed lesbian relationship with another woman she believed to be her soul-mate. They went through a commitment ceremony in a gay church, and raised a daughter together. She enjoyed a position of leadership as a bright and articulate spokesperson for a gay church.


Through all those years, Diane’s mother was steadfast in three things. She loved Diane unconditionally. She never backed down about her belief that her daughter’s lifestyle was sinful because God says it’s wrong. And third, she prayed faithfully for her daughter.


Diane and her partner sought the Lord about everything except their sexuality. At one point, they were praying together for wisdom and truth about a situation that had nothing to do with their relationship. God answered their prayer in an unexpected way; He showed them the truth about the sinful nature of their relationship. It was a terribly painful and unwelcome discovery to learn that they had been deceived. Together, they decided out of obedience to God to separate and break off their relationship. It’s still painful, even as Diane experiences God’s healing touch in the deepest parts of her wounded soul. He’s changing Diane and Carol from the inside out.


Two Claims for Change
Some people deal with same-sex attraction by pretending it’s not there. Denial is unfortunately the time-honored “Christian” response. But this is not the way God wants us to deal with problems; Psalm 51:6 says, “Surely you desire truth in my inmost parts.” Acknowledging one has a homosexual orientation is like seeing the red light on your car’s dashboard; it means something is wrong somewhere. A homosexual orientation isn’t the actual problem; it’s the symptom of a deeper issue–legitimate, God-given needs for relationship and intimacy that have been channeled in unhealthy and sinful directions.


But it is not a simple matter, and it would be disrespectful to imply that there is an easy solution to the complex issue of homosexuality. Among those who claim that change is possible, there are two main schools of thought on how to get there.


The first and most recommended treatment (within the Denominational religious system) for homosexuality is reparative therapy. There is a lot of wisdom to be found here because many therapists believe that homosexuality has its roots in hurtful relationship patterns, especially with family members, and many homosexual men and women report exactly that. But reparative therapy is often just behavior modification, and it deals only with the flesh, that part of us independent of God.

Reparative therapy can make people feel better, but it can’t bring true inner healing.


The second, and I believe best, way to bring about real and lasting change is a redemptive approach. Ministries that disciple men and women in intimate relationship with Jesus Christ are able to lead them into inner healing because God transforms His people. It’s excruciatingly difficult to leave homosexuality without support. Fortunately, even for people who do not live in an area where there is an Exodus referral ministry, there are online support forums that are almost as powerful as face-to-face groups. I especially recommend the one at http://www.livehope.org. There are also some wonderful books available, particularly Coming Out of Homosexuality by Bob Davies, and Someone I Love is Gay by Anita Worthen and Bob Davies. Another excellent book is You Don’t Have to Be Gay by Jeff Konrad. But discipleship is hard work, and there is no simple and easy fix.


The Path to True Change
The most effective route to real, lasting change for those caught in same-gender attraction is a redemptive approach. This means discipleship, being taught and encouraged and held accountable to develop intimacy with Christ. Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to matter what the particular stronghold is in a person’s life–whether it be homosexuality, gluttony, drug dependency, compulsive gambling or shopping, alcoholism, sexual addiction, or any other stronghold–the most effective solution is the same: intimacy with Christ.


True discipleship is hard work. And God even gives us the energy for discipleship! But it takes tremendous self-discipline to choose to operate in the Spirit instead of in our own flesh, to depend on God’s strength instead of our own.

The real battle is in the mind.


The steps to overcoming homosexuality also apply to overcoming any stronghold.


First, the person has to stop the sinful behavior. It’s best to ask for God’s help. This is no different from the requirement for any drug or alcohol abuse treatment. You can’t work on a problem when you’re still totally controlled by it.


The second step is to work on learning what the Bible says about who you are in Christ. Just as people learning to identify counterfeit money examine real currency so they can spot the fakes, the struggler needs to fill his mind with God’s Word so he can enter into his true identity as a beloved, valuable child of God.


The third step is working on the thought life, since this is where the battle is. It’s important to identify Satan’s lies playing as tapes in one’s head, and stop the tape player! Then, deliberately replace the lies with the truth. Instead of “I’m never going to change,” repeat the truthful promise that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13). Instead of obsessing over the aching and longing for the unhealthy and sinful behavior, fill your mind with praise and worship and Scripture.


Next, face the fact that it feels lousy! When we stop trying to meet our needs in our own ways, we start experiencing the emotional pain that our strongholds had covered up. When it feels really really bad, we are at that very point where God can make the biggest difference. Ask, What is my true need? What is it my heart is truly longing for? Go to Jesus and let Him meet your deepest heart-needs. Let Him direct you to get your divinely-designed needs for relationship with other people met in godly ways.


This is where powerful healing happens.


For the last several years, people who had left homosexuality have slowly but surely gained a hearing in telling their stories. Word is getting out: change is possible!


And there are also the voices of the frustrated and disillusioned souls who tried to leave homosexuality, who tried to change, and gave up. There’s even a name for it: “Ex ex-gays.” Their stories are full of tremendous pain, and some have even lost their faith over it. What happened?


Well, I think the same thing that happened to people who tried AA but couldn’t stop drinking, or those who tried Weigh Down Workshop but couldn’t lose weight. I have a friend who was in Weigh Down Workshop, and it didn’t do a thing for her. The problem is, she never made the commitment to “die to self,”  to use a Scriptural term {2}. She never got to the point of saying, “Jesus, I choose You over food. I choose a holy relationship with You over an unhealthy relationship with my appetite. And I will do whatever it takes to allow You to change my heart.”


Many people who tried to change their homosexuality could win contests for praying and reading their Bibles. They really did try very very hard. But the prayers are often misdirected: “God, change me. Take away my desires. Let me start liking people of the opposite sex.” Unfortunately, as well-intentioned as this prayer is, it’s a lot like trying to get rid of dandelions in your back yard by mowing them. They keep coming back because you’re not dealing with their roots. The basic cause of a homosexual orientation isn’t genetics or choice; it’s a wrong response to being hurt. It’s about protecting oneself and trying to get legitimate needs met in ways God never intended. True change can only happen with the hard work of submitting to God, allowing Him to expose the deep hurts and needs of one’s heart, which means facing horrible pain, and inviting Him to bring healing to those wounded places. That’s why intimacy with Christ is the answer. A wise friend observed that homosexuality is the fruit of sinful ways of dealing with pain–sinful because they cut us off from the One who can heal and meet our needs, sinful because they place us at the center of our universe and we don’t belong there. Jesus does.


I hope you can see that real change is hard and it costs a great deal because it requires strong motivation, hard work, and perseverance. But hundreds of former homosexuals have found a large degree of change, attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender. Some former homosexuals marry and some don’t, but marriage is not the measuring stick; spiritual growth and obedience are.


The bottom line is, change is possible.


Also See Salvation and Born Again




{1} All names in this article are changed except for Randy’s.


{2} See Romans 6.


© 2001 Probe Ministries International.


Copyright/Reproduction Limitations:

This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2007 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.


Homosexual Myths


By Sue Bohlin


In this essay we’ll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas’ excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement.(1) While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn’t just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.


10% of the Population Is Homosexual.
In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.(2) He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average “Joe College” student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.(3) The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual “civil rights” movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.(4)


Alfred C. Kinsey


Kinsey’s figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.(5) But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it’s valid. It’s not.


People Are Born Gay.


Ann Landers


Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data’s not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene “linkage” studies.(6) Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn’t have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.(7) Dr. Simon LeVay’s famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn’t sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn’t know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.(8) Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X- chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.(9) Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn’t make it a normal condition.


Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.


And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we’re born with something doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s not true that “God makes some people gay.” All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.


View an excellent in-depth article exposing the lie of “born gay” currently being propogated by the Homosexual Agenda:

“The Born Gay Hoax”


What’s Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?
There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention, like being “best friends” with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God’s plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.


Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really “best friend” status, and that does not require legal protection.


Gay Marriage is right


Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine “family” any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.


The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won’t make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.(10) Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very “other” beings–the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn’t work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.


Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.
Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn’t specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?


This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John’s gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!(11) The gospels don’t record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.


We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God’s created intent for human sexuality: “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 the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). God’s plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.


The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay theologians argue that the term “abomination” is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.


Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh’s people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today doesn’t mean none of it does.


The argument that the word “abomination” is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn’t hold water.


If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.(12)


Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.
Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” (Matt. 7:1) The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don’t believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the “Judge not” verse.


When Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another’s sin. There’s no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn’t necessarily judging.


InPlainSite.org Note: Contrary to popular beliefs.. the Bible makes some very straight forward statements about ‘judging’.

See “Judge Not”


Imagine I’m speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, “You broke the speed limit back there, ma’am.” Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: “Hey, you’re judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!’” The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He’s not judging my character, he’s comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It’s not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That’s judging.


The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual

Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

Romans 1:26-27 says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it’s not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.


But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between “true” homosexuals and “false” ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn’t the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.


Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men “inflamed with lust” for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.(13) You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.


Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.
I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of “internalized homophobia” and violence directed at them.(14) This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.


View Orthodoxy Today article exposing the deception inherent in Paul Gibson’s report.


San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.(15) The report’s numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that’s over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop-in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, “I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”(15)


View “Homosexuality and Teen Suicide”, from Touchstone Magazine.


The report’s conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.(17)


Gibson didn’t use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson’s report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: “The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.”(18)


Dr. Davis Shaffer


That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it’s not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it’s wrong and harmful behavior.




1. Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1996.


2. Dr. Judith Reisman, “Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution,” The Journal of Human Sexuality (Carrollton, Tex.: Lewis and Stanley, 1996), 21.


3. Ibid., 26.


4. Ibid., 21.


5. Richard G. Howe, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths (found on the American Family Association website at http://www.afa.net) gives this citation: “Knight lists the following sources in support of the 1%-3% figures: J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy,” Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993; Tom W. Smith, “Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS,” Family Planning Perspectives (May/June 1991): 102; John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady, and Daniel H. Klepinger, “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, vol. 25, no. 2 (March/April 1993).”


6. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “The Gay Gene?”, The Journal of Human Sexuality, 4.


7. Dallas, 114.


8. Ibid., 112-114.


9. Ibid., 116.


10. Ephesians 5:25-32


11. John 20:30


12. Dallas, 193.


13. Ibid., 195.


14. Peter LaBarbera, “The Gay Youth Suicide Myth,” The Journal of Human Sexuality, 65.


15. Ibid.


16. Ibid., 66.



© 1996 Probe Ministries International.


Copyright/Reproduction Limitations:
This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale.

All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2007 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.

The Bible is the Authentic Word of God

Bible Word of God

John R. Houk

© April 27, 2012


Christianity’s Bible is considered the Word of God as the Spirit of God inspired human agents to write onto paper. Christianity respects the authority of Jews on Old Testament (that has different appellations in Judaism) Scripture. New Testament Scripture is compiled based on believed first hand association of Jesus Christ and the evaluation that the author was who he says he was. New Testament Canonization had some close calls on certain Scriptures that were considered authentic by many Christian theologians but barely missed the cut. And there are Canonized Scriptures that barely made the cut.


Critics of those Christians that believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God often denigrate the Bible for being authored by multiple people and ratified (i.e. Canonized) as holy by human agency thus questioning the Divine origin of the Word of God. I don’t know how Biblical believing theologians answer this criticism; however I have developed a simple matter of faith for the human agency criticism.


In answering the criticism I uphold the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Triune God is three persons in perfection union as ONE Divine entity. The Word of God has been spoken and written down under the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit connecting with the human spirit. I also believe the Holy Spirit is the Hand of God guiding human agency determining which writing is to be read as the Word of God.


Now this post is a simplistic explanation of Christian Biblical faith to answer the criticism of Muslim Apologists that denigrate the Bible as written content that has stretched over thousands of years by various human authors and various human dialects. The Muslim claim is that the Quran is the true word of god (i.e. their Allah) from one dude that spoke one dialect which is Arabic.


The reality about the Quran though is that its formation is not as pure as a Muslim would have you believe. There were multiple Qurans compiled by many Mohammed Companions that had variations in them. One of the Rightly Guided Caliphs – Uthman (Othman, depending on who you read) the third one – gathered up all the other Qurans and made his version the authentic Quran while burning the alternative Qurans. There was no committee or council seeking the will of god collectively. Rather Uthman had his Quran assembled and proclaimed it Allah’s will and made sure no one else could dispute by eliminating the other Qurans.


Below are two essays that describe the process of how the Quran came to be.


JRH 4/27/12

Please Support NCCR

Dr. Cass Answers Bible Twisting Homosexuals

Jesus Annoyed

John R. Houk

© February 23, 2012


In case you are unaware, homosexuals and homosexual apologists, are big on Biblical revisionism in order to justify their perversion to Christian critics. Dr. Gary L. Cass does an excellent job in exposing the deception of homosexuals that attempt to manipulate the Word of God.


There is one point in Dr. Cass’ essay that is weak that Christian-haters love to jump on. Dr. Cass utilizes the judgment of the Law in the Old Testament on what happens to homosexuals. The Law demands a penalty for sin. In the case of perverted homosexuals the penalty is death in the Old Testament.


Christians and the secular world find the Old Testament penalty for homosexuality to be unenlightened for the modern age. My answer for this is Galatians 3: 10-14 NKJV:


10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[a] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[b] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[c]


13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[d]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Jesus’ Redemption is that no human need perish in the fires of hell. Christ takes on the curse/penalty of the Law that those that believe on Christ are free because of the Cross. The violence exacted on sinners in the Old Testament was receiving curse/penalty in order to satisfy Justice of broken Law. Thank God for the Redemptive Blood of Christ that expiates the curse of the Law.


The expiation is for those that believe and receive Christ in their heart as Lord and Savior. Without Redemption there is no expiation; however Grace in Christ gives humanity their last breath to repent. New Testament Christians do not string up homosexuals because of their choice of a sinful lifestyle. People who hear the Gospel have two choices: To choose Life in Christ or to choose death (the Second Death) apart from God. Judgment day is when the truth of what choice was made in this temporal life to decide one’s eternal fate.


JRH 2/23/12


Women in Position of Authority

Adam Houk & John Houk

© May 2011


Adam Houk comments on the stand I was taking relating to women in leadership in the discussion that I posted entitled, “GOP Nomination for President Part One & Two”. Adam’s comment leans more toward Part Two in which the discussion was about women in high Office.


Below is Adam’s comment follower by some of my thoughts.



Adam Responds


I have read most of your response and agree with a lot of it.  I would like to seriously point out something though.  My hesitation has nothing to do with making women 2nd class citizens.  I would like to take a look at Titus chapter 2 to start with.  Titus chapter 2 has made it clear that women’s priorities are to be the home.  This doesn’t mean that it should be the only thing they are doing.  Though I would like to note how demanding a job like a high end politician would be and how if a woman has small children taking on a high end politician job would take away from this high priority of the home.  Small children take a lot of time to take care of.  I can tell you this from experience since I have 2 small children.  I would like to suggest that Titus 2 says that anything that would take away from this priority of the home for women would be an ungodly task for them to commit to.


This is not to say that women should not go out and commit to other things too.  On the contrary if women have extra time I would suggest that it is their duty to spend their time wisely and give their services to the Lord in whatever way they are called to.  There is no reason to be idle in the home if it takes little time to take care of it.  Idleness is condemned in the Bible.  I would like to point out that the examples of married women helping Paul did not show in any way that their service to Paul was a detriment to this first priority.


Now let’s take a minute to look at Deborah.


8 And Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!”

9 So she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.


This here would suggest that it was not such a good thing that she is taking the credit, but in times where there is no other fit leader then yes a godly woman should take leadership.  As for the couple of women (SlantRight Editor: Aquila is actually the husband and Priscilla the wife) in leadership:


25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18: 2, 18, 25-26 NKJV)


They were rebuking him of his error.  I’m not sure this is the same as teaching, in fact the other verses would suggest that this isn’t the same as teaching because it calls for women not to teach men.


12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.


To take the scripture correctly we have to take it as a whole and consider the circumstances of all.  Sometimes there is much clarification that needs to be made and the subject on women in leadership is quite a tricky one.  This is why I used the exact word “hesitant”.


There has been much distortion in today’s society based on this 2nd class citizen idea where women are being taught that holding to this biblical teaching makes them 2nd class citizen’s and this is clearly not true.  I believe this manipulation has been what has been a major cause of the major increase in the divorce rate where women are inherently taught that this is oppression.  Now I must admit that men have incorrectly taken this teaching to mean they can oppress women. The Church has a duty to rebuke these men.  Women are coequal habitants of marriage, but at the same time men are put in leadership of the home.  This means that in times where there is a requirement that a final decision be made it needs to be made by the man to either take the final say or to defer it if there is no agreement made.  This must always be done in a loving fashion as is indicated in the same section of scripture.


There is nothing unequal about the difference of a leader and a follower.  One is just making decisions and the other is following the decisions.  In fact Jesus came to earth and showed us by example the way to be servant leaders.  A leader is best shown by example.


Isaiah 3:12 warns of this happening as we have seen today’s society head to where it is now.  We have seen how women have been portrayed on television as always right and men as idiots. And this portrayal has been propagated into our society where there is a lack of respect for men’s ability to lead the home.  Now women are truly leading many homes in America.  I remember when I took sociology they were still trying to improve women’s wages saying that they were making far less than men, but the statistics they had did not segregate in differences in the decisions of wages.  It was found in a recent study that a woman working the for same amount of time in the same position of a man was actually making 114% of that which a man is making.  I have read a statement from the Feminist movement where they were chastising women who decided to be stay-at-home mom’s saying they were ruining it for the rest of women.  We have truly moved from a point in history where women were being unfairly treated to where men are now being unfairly and unrighteously treated.  We have hit this point of the latter days in which Isaiah 3:12 speaks of.


I may be missing something and I didn’t quite read your whole response quite yet because it is extremely long.



John’s Response


Pretty much I agree with everything Adam was stating except in the blanket statement that all women with small children would too busy for a political position in government. I believe the blanket statement of “all” should be modified. Women involved in outside work situations that does more harm than good for the family home especially involving small children, should consider the Biblical prime directive of her role in the joint-management of the family unit. So also should the man consider his Biblical prime directive, he is the manager-in-chief of his family. Tough decisions must be moderated by the man-husband but not in a way that undermines the woman-wife’s role designated by the Bible. In other words the prime responsibility of sustaining the family is the husband’s. Sustainment must occur in the shape of love even as Jesus is the Head of the Church sacrificed Life that that the Church-Bride might live. As Jesus rose from the dead, so also a godly husband’s sacrifice of family sustenance will bring Resurrection Power to a husband-wife family unit.


Then there are women who are involved in a family unit of means. It is not an uncommon thing for the wife to share family duties with a nanny or maid. And I do not think it takes away from the family if the mother AND THE father purposely designate time in training their children in The Way they should go so that when maturity is achieved they will follow The Way of the Lord and Savior of humanity. If managed correctly I do not see that a wife-mom’s role is diminished in the family unit; however I also can see that the mismanagement of a wife-mom’s role could also be damaging in their role of training young children. As a reminder I also add that the husband-father has a vital role in training his children that involves godly life choices. The wife-mother’s role is more of a nurturing role. A nurturing can be accomplished in a household of means if managed correctly. Again Sarah is a good example of a good and bad nurturing role and the outcome of the good-bad nurturing.


Adam briefly examines the example Judge Deborah and General Barak. Barak would not go to war to save the Israel tribes unless Deborah came along on the campaign. Adam points out correctly when there is no male leadership it is the will of God for a godly woman to step up to the plate. I don’t think Barak was a weak male leader. Deborah as Judge made the call for deliverance and Barak answered the call. Barak merely wanted to be sure that God was in the plan to throw of decades of oppression. To do that, he brought along the Judge of that time. That Judge was Deborah who was incidentally married to Lapidot in which there is no mention of him aiding in the battle that would throw oppression from Canaanite King Jabin. To get a picture of Lapidot you have to go to Jewish tradition on the Judgeship of Deborah.


The Torah tells us that Deborah was the “wife of Lapidot” ~ Lapidot means “torches” ~ Together with her husband, Deborah made wicks for the Menorah in the Temple, thus helping to spread the light of Yahveh among her people. Her hope and aspiration were that each person will find a deeper understanding and connection to Yahveh. For that reason Yahveh selected her to motivate Israel to re-embrace Torah.


Deborah prophesied and led her nation from her seated place under a date palm. “A prophetess, the wife of Lapidot; she sat under the date palm of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel on Mount Ephraim, and the children of Israel went up to her for judgement.” Judges 4:5


The date palm was a symbol for Deborah’s generation. Just as the life giving sap of a date palm is limited to its trunk, Deborah’s generation had limited access to the life force of Torah, because it had so few Torah scholars. The date palm’s minimal shade represents the relative absence of spiritual and physical protection without Torah. On the other hand, it was also a symbol of Israel’s strength, and the concentration of sap in the trunk typified the unity of their faith. These characteristics seemed to be contradicting, yet both extremes were true of the Prophetess’ generation.


Deborah’s understanding of Israel’s potential for spiritual greatness stemmed from her maternal love. She held hope for Israel and inspired a renewed sense of value as Yahveh’s chosen people, and exhibited a woman’s ability to instill rather than impose, to invigorate rather than force, and to cultivate rather than command.


As judge, Deborah brought a feminine sensibility to a male
dominated office. She referred to herself as a “Mother to Israel” and her commitment to nurturing fit this title. Deborah’s leadership style was selfless, focusing on the people rather than on herself. This, together with her appreciation and knowledge of Torah and her prophetic gift, marked her for national rejuvenation
. (Rinah Shal Tripod page on Torah Studies – link above)


Adam comments on Aquila and Priscilla as a married team of Apostles that worked with the Apostle Paul. Adam focuses on Acts 18: 25-26 (NKJV) interpreting that the married Apostles rebuked Apollos for only teaching what he had learned from John the Baptist’s anointing of repenting of sins and make your paths straight in preparation for the coming Messiah. I disagree that it was a rebuke. I believe the word “explaining” means more of a teaching moment in which Apollos heard the Gospel of the Risen Savior and believed; thus Aquila and Priscilla taught the Word of God. This only has women leadership issue in that the wife Priscilla taught a male – Apollos – the Word of God. This is important because it means there is a deeper meaning to Paul speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:


12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (I Timothy 2: 12 NKJV)


An atheist or non-Christian would point out that Scripture that does not permit a woman to teach (which does mean an authority position) a man combined with Priscilla actually teaching a man a better way is evidence of a Biblical contradiction. But I say it is evidence that women that have not had authoritative training in instruction should not presume to teach a man. That concept makes Scripture agree in Acts 18: 25-26 and in I Timothy 2: 12. Instead of looking for surface particulars seek the deeper connective explanation. That thought was not for Adam who I am sure would agree with me, but the thought was for our readers who need to know that the Word of God is indeed the inspired Word delivered from the Holy Spirit to the lips of human agents.


Of course the issue of single parent homes especially as the all to common case of the parent being a woman is another subject to examine. That discussion today is viewed as politically incorrect because the underlying issue is divorce or fornication outside of marriage.


Adam’s thoughts on Isaiah 3: 15 is something I whole heartedly agree with:


I have read a statement from the Feminist movement where they were chastising women who decided to be stay at home mom’s saying they were ruining it for the rest of women.  We have truly moved from a point in history where women were being unfairly treated to where men are now being unfairly and unrighteously treated.  We have hit this point of the latter days in which Isaiah 3:12 speaks of.