Josiah Concept Ministries

The Penitent Atheist says:

As it turned out, the issue of homosexuality, among others, helped me see that the Bible, and Christianity, were false. It is very simple, really. If homosexuality is not a choice, then Christianity is wrong. And it is patently clear that homosexuality is not a choice; it is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. (source)

And then:

Someone will counter my arguments here by asking if we should also be tolerant of pedophiles. After all, one might argue, they don’t choose their sexual preference either. But there is a very significant difference between homosexual sex between two consenting adults and sex between an adult and a child. The child does not, cannot, consent, and is severely harmed psychologically by the experience. The vast disparity of power between an adult and a child, both physical and psychological, makes it sexual activity harmful.

Actually, I wouldn’t counter the argument by arguing for pedophilia. But I’m glad that our penitent friend recognizes that lack of choice in the manner or method of sexual attraction does not equate to said manner or method being correct behavior. That will form the foundation of my counter-argument.

I will assume that a lack of a conscious choice in the matter will mean a genetic predisposition toward the behavior, in this case, homosexuality. The penitent atheist, in his reverse example, doesn’t consider environmental factors so I believe that I’m safe in assuming that he is primarily arguing on genetics. So, let’s ask ourselves: Does a genetic predisposition to something automatically mean that this is a desirable state of being? Consider that alcoholism (or any addictive behavior, for that matter), heart disease, high blood pressure, emphysema, rage, Down’s syndrome, and cancer are all influenced by genetics. That is why this line of reasoning is fallacious. There are many negative traits that are also genetic.

The entire “homosexuality isn’t a choice” argument automatically assumes that because something is hard wired into our being that it is a good thing. That is clearly and demonstrably false. I struggle with an addiction. I have anger management issues. I’ve survived cancer. These things are likely hard wired into my DNA, but I don’t believe that any of those things affect me positively, and I certainly won’t submit to addiction or just tell my wife that she’ll have to deal with my rage because that stuff is genetic and I don’t have a choice in the matter.

The truth is that I do have a choice in the matter. I can recognize those attributes, such as addiction and rage, for the corrupting influences that they are. Homosexuality, whether it is hard wired or a personal preference, is no different. The homosexual must realize, first, that this behavior is a corrupting influence. Then, he or she must act on this realization and surrender to the authority of God through Christ Jesus. That is only the first step. I do now and always will struggle with my addiction. So will these saints. But they will be saved by the same grace that saved me, and in time, they will come to terms with that sin as I have. They will struggle with it, but they will be equipped to face it head-on.

But don’t take my word for it. Read the testimonies of people who have been positively impacted by taking those steps with homosexuality, and now embrace freedom in Jesus Christ.

There isn’t a cure for homosexuality. No one is trying to claim that. But there is hope for those that struggle with it. The feelings won’t go away, but over time these feelings can be dealt with in a positive, God-glorifying way.

Well, I’ve already given myself one project this week for my Xanga site, which is reflection on Bible verses relating to fatherhood.  I haven’t even started on that.  Since I have a day off tomorrow from BK, I’ll get going on that project.  At least on the very first verse that comes to mind, which is “Honor your father and mother.”

Additionally, a new project has presented itself.  Dave Armstrong has challenged me to substantiate my views on the Vicar of Christ and answer the arguments presented in his article.  I will begin a detailed examination and refutation of his arguments tomorrow as well.

Combined with doing the dishes, the laundry, and cleaning out my car, tomorrow looks to be a very interesting day!

I have changed to a new theme, with custom header, and all that remains is to jazz up that custom header.  I’ll test out a few designs over the next couple of weeks.  In the meantime, e-mail me or leave comments as to what you think of the headers so that I can get some kind of feel for what works.  If you have any ideas, let me know!

On my Xanga site, I’ll be examining Bible verses relating to fatherhood, a subject that is obviously near and dear to my own heart.  I will repost the complete results on my Articles page once I’m finished with the series.

I start back to work today.  Combined with impending fatherhood and the desire to break into freelance writing so that I have a nice work-at-home job that I can put as much or as little effort into as I need to make more family time, the entries here may be a little on the light side for a couple of weeks.  I’m sure that all of the fathers and entrepreneurs out there will completely understand.

A reader named Brian has left comments on some of my Father Leyland articles–here, here, and here–and his comments demonstrate he has not read this post, which makes it abundantly clear that I am on Father Leyland’s side, and that I understand that the Bishop’s decision was solely a political move to silence a detractor.

I will admit to not knowing about the Father Nuss situation until after I posted the article where I speculated that he may have turned the pastorate down because he was afraid that he would not be an effective leader, and where I lamented that he might have otherwise missed out on a growth experience.  I know the real reason, and I am appalled that a man in his position would abuse it such, though the hierarchy of Catholic priests in this country is ripe with many example of pedophilia and abuse of power (Bernard Cardinal Law, anyone?).

Perhaps this is another documented example of how the people who speak for Rome don’t bother to check all of the writing that a person has done on a particular issue?  Last I checked, my search function in the upper right corner is fully operational and requires only for a potential user to type “FATHER LEYLAND” into it for a rundown of all the articles that I posted in relation to him.

A reader identifying himself as Dan writes in hope that I will swim back across the Tiber. He says:

I’m also glad that you’re on fire for the Lord. But I am sorry that you misunderstand the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you’re not alone — the late Bishop Sheen, as I’m sure you’ve heard, said that ‘there are probably a hundred people in the U.S. who disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but thousands upon thousands who disagree with what they wrongly think the Church teaches. . . .’ I prayed and listened and read and thought and found that, yes, the Catholic Church is the true Church established by our Lord. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Catholics don’t resacrifice Christ on the altar. Catholics don’t violate Scripture by calling our priests “Father.” Catholics don’t believe that they can earn their way to heaven. . . . I will suggest that you check out the folks at “Catholic Answers,” including catholic.com, as well as at chnetwork.com; I think you’ll find — after more prayer and thought — more of value and truth at those sites than at the site of Mr. White. The objections I’ve seen on your blog entries are all answerable at these sites.

All right, where to begin? I’m familiar with the quote from Bishop Sheen, but I don’t believe I have misrepresented the Catholic faith. I grew up in the Catholic faith. I’ve seen the evidence of the Mary worship. Like Dr. White, I disagree that hyperdulia, dulia, and latria are fundamentally different things, which is the general explanation behind Mary worship. I addressed that topic in this article.

As to Catholics and the Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, says that the Eucharist “is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.“  Continuing in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

I’m sorry, but to say that Catholics are not re-sacrificing Christ on that altar is using the same trick of language that I refused to accept for worship (veneration) of Mary.  More on that here.

Catholics believe the necessity of the sacraments for the dispensing of God’s grace, which means that you actually have to do something–participate in the sacraments–for salvation.  That, to me, is the same as a works-based salvation.

I have never said that Catholics sin by calling their priests “Father.”  That you included that tells me that you haven’t read my position on those matters.  No one, in fact, has read either of those essays I linked to for quite a while.

Dan, I am aware of the sites that you link to.  As to whether they or Dr. White are more truthful, I suggest that you check out Dr. White’s recent blog entry on this unfortunate example of dishonesty from one of your own apologists, Dave Armstrong.  According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese.  This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy.   Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would fill that office, not a mere man.  This article explains it in greater detail.

Armstrong quotes the dictionary definition of a vicar, but he knows full well that this is not the definition of vicar that is implied by the Pope’s Vicar of Christ title.  That is blatant dishonesty on his part.

On which bank of the Tiber will I remain?  The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty to try to call someone a non-Trinitarian.  James White has undoubtedly done more to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity than any of the Roman Catholic apologists who would be his detractors.  This is the side of the river you’re trying to entice me to?  No, thank you.  I will stay put.

Solid and unshakable faith in Christianity begins and ends with one person: Jesus Christ. He made us a promise that I have found has stood the test of time in both my personal life and my marriage:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Mat 7:24-27)

The rock is important symbolically, for the rock represents God Himself (cf. Deut 32:1-43; 1 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 22:2, 3, 32, 47, 23:3; Ps 18, 62:2, 6, 89:26; Is 26:4, 44:8). It is therefore of fundamental importance to build your foundation on the rock of Jesus Christ. I cannot stress this point enough.

I call us apologists “God’s cops.” To an extent, that is exactly what we do. We fulfill the functions of a police detective squad in service to the gospel. One thing that police do is chase after fugitives, or attempt to prevent someone becoming a fugitive. Jesus promises that no one will be able to snatch one of His faithful (Jn 10:29). I believe that He fulfills His promises by using us, and so I will pray that Bill from The Friendly Christian reads this post and His faith is strengthened by what he reads.

Bill is having a crisis of faith, not unlike Mother Teresa had. But it seems as though Bill hasn’t properly understood theology, and the people that I’ve read in response to him are either atheists that are pushing him to take the next step and admit that God doesn’t exist, or Christians who are just telling him to have faith because it’ll get better.

This is why I echo James White’s oft-repeated mantra of “Theology Matters.” Bill kicks off his post this way:

I feel like God has blessed/cursed me. I feel like I’m currently able to view Christianity through the eyes of an Atheist. I see the “flaws.” I see the “holes.” The OT God seems much different from the NT God. I see the hypocrisy. (emphasis added)

Bill says that this is unsettling and troubling. Then he adds, “I don’t know why, but I’m just so sold out on God, though” (emphasis added). What is unsettling and disturbing to me is a Christian who can’t answer why he believes in God in the first place. It seems to me that Bill has a very blind faith, and not faith that is based on a contextual definition of faith in the first place.

That Bill thinks the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are different means that he would have difficulty explaining passages like Nahum 1:6 or Numbers 31. But this is not the case when God’s wrath is properly understood side-by-side with His love, not opposed to it! This is the first evidence of a larger problem: Bill really doesn’t have a good foundation for his faith!

Read more »

I have noticed that the Christian position tends to be the most consistent position in any argument between theists and atheists. Here is yet another shining example of the inconsistency of the atheist position:

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (source)

He expresses joy over this news but then adds:

Sadly, we can’t celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war. . . . Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

He refers to the fact that the article states that the school board wants textbooks that more throughly examine the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. He laments, “Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation’s children receive the science education they need.”

So, what’s the matter? Chicken? If your theory is so solid, then surely it will stand up to close scrutiny, right? Why the objection to looking at the theory more closely? Because the goal of the atheist is the same as what he accuses the Christian of: indoctrination. He wants no controversy to appear to exist with the theory of evolution, so that children don’t even think that holes exist, that they simply believe, de fide, that evolution is the explanation for everything. That is indoctrination, pure and simple.

It reminds me of this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:18-21, emphasis added)

And:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)

Next, we have a clear case of an atheist proving the wrong point, but not realizing it.  John Ray, a professed atheist, makes the following point:

One small point that I would make about the article I have referenced concerns the idea that atheists characteristically subscribe to moral relativism. I think that is broadly true and it does make nonsense of the condemnations uttered by such atheists. How can they say religion is wrong while at the same time saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong? (source, emphasis added)

Which pretty much sums up what the majority of Christians believe about the mindset that atheism leads to.  Note that we don’t say that atheists themselves are amoral, only that they way that they think leads to this type of inconsistency.  Jeff Haws from The Atheocracy, answers thus:

Is this guy really an Atheist? First of all, I’ve very rarely (OK, never, actually) heard an Atheist say religion is “wrong” from a moral perspective. They’ve said religion is wrong, as in “incorrect,” and they might say it’s mostly harmful to society, but I don’t think they’d say you’re morally wrong for being religious. (source)

Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is not Great, has a chapter entitled “Religion as Original Sin” and another called “Is Religion Child Abuse?”  Therefore, I would have to disagree with Jeff’s analysis that atheists never proclaim that religion is wrong from a moral perspective.

Jeff concludes:

Secondly, no Atheist that I know of says “there’s no such thing as right and wrong.” What they say is there’s no central authority to determine what’s morally right and wrong for everyone. . . .  Each individual has to be responsible to him or herself. If you choose to do stupid, morally bankrupt things, there will be consequences for that in this life. Once you die, you’re off the hook, but that’s a bold loophole to take advantage of. There is “right and wrong;” there’s just not a book to scare you into behaving in order to avoid a fiery future.  (emphasis added)

Done.  Jeff has proven that moral relativism rules in atheism, and that there is no objective right and wrong.  Yet atheists continue to appeal to objective right and wrong, even looking for a source for it in evolution. It looks like John Ray is more astute than Jeff Haws thinks he is!

I bashed Steve Ray’s take on the Assumption of Mary, but now I have to agree with this piece on his blog.

I’m so tired of seeing the “gay isn’t a choice” rhetoric posted everywhere.  I’m happy to see a website telling stories of people who were formerly gay who gave their lives to Christ and let His Holy Spirit set them free.  We Christians aren’t trying to change gay people: we are truly trying to set them free with the liberating blood of Jesus Christ, who is big enough to overcome any and all sin that a person brings to Him.

We must never forget that Jesus “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25).  And “neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39).  These are powerful, biblical truths that so many of our gay brothers and sisters deny in service to an idolatrous lifestyle.  If only they would turn themselves to Jesus, He will save them.

Thank you, Steve Ray, for telling the truth about this prickly issue.

Yes, I had a rather sudden and unexpected absence from the blog. I hope that you will forgive me when you read the long version of it, here. We can, of course, expect at least one more absence for a week or so in October, but that will be a good thing: my daughter’s birth!

In the coming days, I will be reading and catching up on what has been going on in the blogosphere while I was in the hospital. Also, I will be job hunting. Hopefully, I’ll return to blogging by Tuesday or Wednesday.

I hope everyone has fun at their Labor Day BBQs, or whatever.

On a side note, my brother-in-law, Nate, has an entry with the multi-faceted problem of our place in this universe that I thought my readers might enjoy while waiting for an entry from me. It sums up the two problems that we have been discussing here over the previous week: absolute truth and doctrinal disputes among Christians.