Pervasive and Pernicious Homophobia

Signs such as this one illustrate boldly the effects and affects of homophobia upon society.  The original of this photo is at D'Avid RC's Photos.

This photo shows the extreme cleverness and deceptive power of the methods used in this society changing agenda.  The fact that this is a very deliberately orchestrated agenda is so in-your-face that most people do not even recognize it as an agenda.  Rather, most people have come already to accept it as the norm rather than an overthrow of the norm.

The very term of homophobia has been presented in a deceptive manner.  A term describing a natural and normal reaction to a dangerous and destructive behavioral pattern and choice has been repeatedly and endlessly presented as something to be abhorred and avoided.  The natural reaction that people have to something that they instinctively perceive as dangerous and aberrant from the natural order of life has been presented as an irrational and unhealthy reaction.

Yet the facts of life remain unchanged.  The facts of nature stand against all of the attempts to deny them.

The fact is that humanity has a natural awareness of the dangers of the totally unnatural perversions of the natural order.  Choosing to act in opposition to the natural order does present both obvious and subtle dangers.  And to have a phobia or fear of things that cause danger is not only normal and natural, but also healthy and proper.

Imagine the reaction that would be observed from people if a father were known to teach his children that they need not to be afraid of sticking their hands under a running lawn mower.  Imagine the public outcry that would result if a kindergarten teacher were known to teach the children that they should not be wary of the advancement of strangers.  Yet these same teachers are now required to use curricula that teach the children to accept diversity and not to fear aberrant lifestyle choices, choices that do have undeniable dangers associated with them.

It has and continues to be frequently presented that the homosexual agenda merely seeks the safety of homosexuals to enact their life choices privately without fear of consequences from so-called homophobes.  But this is a blatant lie.  While some homosexuals merely desire not to be judged and not to be attacked and simply desire to be left alone, this is not the agenda presented publicly.  The homosexual agenda is to force the rest of society to change so as to accept this aberration as normal and to allow it to be promoted as an alternative to the natural order of life.  This agenda has as its objective the use of legislation to force people to accept the sexual deviations as normal and to allow these deviations to be presented to children as alternatives to what both nature and their parents teach them.

Within this agenda is included the doctrine that homosexuality is not a choice but how those with these unnatural urges are born.  Some actually go as far as to call it a genetically inherited trait.  And while there are some children who are born with both forms of genitalia, it is absurd to claim that this is normal or even inherited.  This is a genetic aberration.

It also is true that some children are born with personalities that demonstrate more or less femininity or masculinity.  This is indeed normal, but not truly genetic.  It may be inherited, but at a level far more powerful than the genes.  Regardless, this is not the same as being born a homosexual.  Rather, this is simply the diverse range of emotional composition of people’s personalities.

There is no doubt that females are born with emotions and patterns of thinking that are more feminine and males with more masculine.  But within both sexes there is a naturally occurring wide range of expression of these traits.  Again, this does not make a person more or less of a homosexual.

However, people do become confused regarding their own understanding of their own emotions.  Most especially people can become confused regarding the difference between philos and eros, that is, the difference between affection and sexual attraction.  At the emotional level these are very closely related, so closely that they are often thought to be the same.  But they are different.  Actually, they are very different, yet also similar.

Most people, without being taught the difference, think that peanuts are nuts.  But peanuts are legumes, which have many similarities with nuts, but also are truly very different.

Philos and eros both are emotions, and very powerful emotions.  Both include a powerful sense of being attracted to another person.  But the two are very different, even though they are often confused as being the same.  For example, it is perfectly natural for two men to experience philos for one another.  This is not a sexual attraction, even though this philos may move them to embrace one another intimately, even with a kiss.  This is not sexual.  However, it can easily be mistaken as a sexual emotion.  Likewise, it is perfectly natural for a man and a woman to experience eros for one another, being attracted to one another sexually.  This leads to reproduction of the human race.  Philos and eros do naturally occur together in such a relationship.  They are naturally paired in the sexual relationship of husband and wife.  These two emotions lead to the union of husband and wife and the formation of a stable family.  This is the natural order.  This is called marriage.

Such a union or marriage cannot occur between two people of the same sex.  Yet the homosexual agenda is to force the rest of society to deny this fact.  The homosexual agenda seeks to use the law to force the rest of society to accept what is clearly unnatural and even impossible.

The human anatomy and physiology teach the facts of life.  Marriage of two human beings of the same sex is simply impossible.  It cannot occur.  It is unnatural to try to make it so.  No matter how many times two women pretend to have sexual relations with one another, or two men with each other, this is not true sexual union.  Living together in this pretense does not constitute marriage.  It is like the old saying of trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.  The two can be forced together, but not in a true fit according their actual design.  Forcing such a union does severe injury to both and changes both into something other than what they truly are.

Yet the homosexual agenda is to force this activity upon the rest of society.  The homosexual agenda demands that the rest of society accept this unnatural and brutal change of sexuality and of society itself.

This agenda also seeks to mute the truth regarding the dangers of this aberrant sexual activity.  This agenda seeks to force society to ignore the truth of the dangers created by this   But the dangers are real.  Ignoring them does not make them less dangerous, but more dangerous.

It is difficult if not impossible to list all of the dangers, let alone to prioritize them according to levels of danger.  However, in this discussion, health dangers will be mentioned first.

The most obvious of the health dangers are the STDs or the Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  These are not the only health dangers, but certainly seem to be the most obvious.  The dangers of STDs accompany any sexual promiscuity, but are especially identified with same sex sexual activity.  For this reason both the United Blood Services and the American Red Cross list criteria for eligibility to donate blood.  As is listed especially on the American Red Cross web site, the policy for rejecting donations from homosexuals is an FDA policy.  Here is a snapshot of that information:

As is mentioned, the homosexual agenda pursues the elimination of such safeguards and there are people who speak out as if this were in some way unfair.  Yet it seems unlikely that these same people when undergoing surgery or other cause for blood transfusion would demand of their doctor that blood from a homosexual be administered.  It is always easy to speak of these things in the abstract, but when the danger hits home, the person’s perspective often returns to the norm.

There are other health and physical dangers connected with homosexual activity, but for now, the one of the dangers to society will be presented.  Healthy societies have always had a clear definition for family.  This is both natural and necessary for a society to function with good order and minimal obstructions.  While polygamy has been practiced throughout history, one man and one woman nevertheless has prevailed.  The difficulties of multiple spouses in a family have always instructed people that one man and one woman is both the most practical and functional.  From the maternal side of this, children always gravitate to acknowledge only one mother.  Where more than one mother is the practice, rivalry always develops both between the wives as well as between the various children.

But homosexuality never produces family.  Never.  In order for homosexuals to obtain children, they must obtain them from a breakdown in the societal norm of healthy man/woman-husband/wife family structure.  Either through the breakdown by adultry/fornication, or by divorce, or by death of parents, or by abandonment by parents, the normal societal family and reproduction functions must be broken in order for homosexuals to obtain children.  This is not normal.  This is not healthy.

Moreover, children cannot learn from two of the same sex the normal and natural order of familial structure and interaction.  They cannot learn the proper distinction of philos and eros from such an arrangement.  Therefore they are cheated of this normal childhood development.  Society is damaged as these children grow and struggle to know their proper place in society.  Ultimately the society breaks down from this unnatural ignorance of the natural order.

Much more can be said in these matters, but now the hypocrisy displayed in the so-called church sign seems to be appropriate.  Here again is the photo:

First of all, notice the hypocrisy of this church judging others for what they themselves have and do promote, that is, the acceptance of divorce and remarriage.  This church has long been known to undermine the concept of the sanctity of marriage, not only regarding the homosexual issue, but regarding promiscuity and divorce as well.  So for this church to point fingers at those they have excused for marrying, divorcing, and remarrying in an endless cycle is the highest hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy amongst those professing to be godly certainly is not a new occurrence.  It can be traced to the very first couple.  It manifested itself horrifically in the life of their first son.  It was manifested amongst the people of Israel.  Jesus denounced it during His ministry amongst the Jews.  His apostles denounced it in their ministries.  The only man never to demonstrate hypocrisy is Jesus.  All the rest of us must confess our own hypocrisy and seek to hear God’s absolution.  Only with this honest self-evaluation can we move forward with godly and healthy lives.  Only abiding in the grace of the Lord can we judge ourselves rightly and then interact in holy, godly, and healthy ways with our fellow man.

It is not the Christian’s place to make oneself judge over others.  It is, however, the Christian’s place to speak the truth in love.  This does include speaking the judgement that has already been declared by the Judge of all, speaking this judgment with the holy desire that honest confession of people’s sinfulness and need of God’s forgiveness and restoration result.  Ignoring the truth about people’s sinfulness is not love.  It is not even kind.  Moreover, such ignorance is in itself judgment of the worst kind.  For this deliberate ignorance of the needs of others is a judgment by which people are judged to be unworthy of such caring and love and effort.

Sadly, most Christians falsely imagine that they have been called by God to legislate morality and godliness.  But the way to which the Lord calls His saints is the way of Agape.  It is the way of His love in action.  His way is the way of speaking the truth in love so that people hear the truth and are confronted with it for their well-being.  His way is to call people to acknowledge His holiness and to be moved to desire for Him to work this in them through the means of grace that He has already ordained to be administered in His Church on earth.

The sanctity of marriage cannot be enacted by law.  Certain protections for family and marriage can be enacted by law, so as to protect married couples and their families from certain intrusions and abuses by both government and society, but the sanctity of marriage cannot be established nor enforced by law.

On this point, the hypocritical statement in the photo of the church sign does make a true inference.  For it is true that one hypocrite cannot enforce the sanctity of anything upon another hypocrite.  Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, who works through the means of grace to convert hypocrites into true believers, who thereby follow His urging to live in accord with the will of God that has been taught to them in their regenerated hearts and souls and minds.

Thus, while the statement in the sign has the appearance of hypocritical motivation, it does nevertheless point to the truth that each person should be first concerned with one’s own sanctification.  If such a person gives the due attention to this concern, very little time or energy will remain for pretending to be God and judging others.  Rather, such people will embrace one another within the Holy Communion ordained by the Lord, calling to one another saying, “Let us return again to the Lord to partake of His grace through His ordained means that we may indeed enjoy His mercy, love, and holiness together.”

+ + +

Judge Not?

Isn't it amazing how many people will say:

"No one's perfect!" 

and then go on to say

that they can't judge others?

 + + +

Assisted Living Facility where Assisting to Live is Forbidden

I find what is shared in this video at The Blaze hard to believe.  A nurse speaks to a 911 operator, calling for emergency assistance for a dying woman, but refuses to help the woman.  The facility’s policy forbids doing CPR to save a resident’s life.



I cannot imagine anyone signing such a restrictive policy.  Well, Obama or Sebelius or Feinstein, yes, but well . . .

This is hurtful to my soul.  Moreover, it is becoming commonplace.

It is hard to imagine that on Facebook and other social media that people post endlessly about abuse of animals and saving the lives of dogs and cats, even old and decrepit dogs and cats.  Meanwhile the daughter of this woman, a nurse, says that she is satisfied with the care that her dying mother received.  What care did her mother receive?

Perhaps this 87 year old woman did not want CPR.  Perhaps she did not want to be assisted.  Perhaps this is why she came to live at this facility.

Was this the case?  Is it my place to speculate?  Is there a time when such a decision is appropriate?

And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people.

   (Genesis 49:33)

And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he, and his father's house: and Joseph lived an hundred and ten years. And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph's knees. And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

  (Genesis 50:22-26)

As I ponder what has been reported, and consider the statement of this woman’s daughter, perhaps I really should be careful about presuming to know more than I do.  After all, this woman lived in a very comfortable environment.  She did receive assistance in her day to day needs.  She was blessed to live to 87 years of age.  Her body was weakened.  Her bones were frail.  She elected to live in a facility where the policy was stated that the rigors of CPR would not be performed.  Does this policy take into account the low success of CPR on such older people?  Does this policy take into account the likelihood of deep and painful bruises, possible broken ribs, and even possible rupture of blood vessels?

Perhaps I am wrong to presume to judge these people of whom I know so little.  After all, they did not withhold food or drink from her.  They did not administer lethal drugs.  They did not refuse to call for paramedics who have the defibrillation and other equipment.

If this is the way, then perhaps this should be explained to the EMS people so that they are not put in the horrific situation that this creates.  As I listened to the audio, my heart ached for this dispatcher.  It seems that at the very least, facilities such as Glenwood Gardens should be required to list their policy with the EMS and explain why CPR is not practiced.  These facilities often are frequent callers of EMS.  The dispatchers should be given better information, both for their own conscience’s sakes as well as to avoid such ugly misunderstanding.

+ + +

The Jealous Father

Here is a story that breaks the heart:

A loving husband and father worked very hard to establish a household for his wife and children. He promised to be faithful and always to take care of them. He built a house, a magnificent home, a genuine mansion. Some might even call it a castle.

He worked and provided for all of the needs of his family. He set up a trust fund that would continually grow so as to provide for his family in perpetuity. He made certain that they were safe and protected.

One day along came a conniving swindler, who had many secret assistants. This selfish and cruel embezzler and thief came to the wife and children with a story about how the father was not as caring and loving as he had presented to them. While the father was busy providing for them and planning for their future, this other fellow convinced the family that they would be better off making their own plans and establishing their own way. He explained how they could take the investments that the father had kept from them and use them more productively. He explained that they could use these investments for things that the father had not given to them for their use, or at least not for the uses that they now would engage.

All that the father had established was undermined. The family unity disintegrated. The family members began to envy one another and to plot against one another. Turmoil supplanted the peace and harmony previously enjoyed. The children began to focus upon hoarding resources. Hard and arduous work became the daily routine. Fences were built to prevent stealing. Wars arose over property disputes.

The father spoke to the family members and urged them to return to the way that they formerly enjoyed together. A few listened and lived in peace together. But the others, the vast majority, reacted angrily and began to promote hatred toward those who listened to their father. The few remaining in the unity of the family were mistreated and sometimes enslaved and sometimes even killed.

What was the father to do? What action should he take concerning those who chose to destroy all that he had lovingly established? What should he do regarding the belligerent rebellion and subsequent attacks against those who remained in the family together?

+ + +

The Suckiest Generation?

From time to time I visit the Cyberbrethren blog. He often has interesting information. Also, his perspective is a reasonable representation of those who today call themselves conservative or confessional Lutherans. Checking his blog as well as others reminds me of the direction that these Lutherans are heading. Lots of information is available on his blog.

In September one of his posts was “Willpower” and the Suckiest Generation. In his post he links to this post by the same title: ‘Willpower’ and the Suckiest Generation. The really striking part of this is the label pinned upon the baby boom generation.

I learned from this article that I am counted by the official demographers, whomever they may be, as part of this baby boom generation, or as this article labels it, the Suckiest Generation.

The opening paragraph of the article says:

     I often joke with my wife that I wish my generation — the Baby Boomers — could die without taking me with them. I’d sure as hell like to be around to see them go. They ruined the culture of this country, threw away the untold riches bequeathed to them, betrayed and undermined centuries of wisdom, spread the use of drugs, legitimized divorce and abortion, and even managed to screw up the civil rights movement that might otherwise have been their signal achievement. On the other hand, they did give us pre-faded jeans, so I guess that’s something.

In the past, and perhaps even upon my first reading of the article, I have been inclined to agree with this assessment. I have never understood the ways of “my” generation. I’ve never counted it as my generation. But as I have grown in knowledge of the globalist agenda, as well as simply learning more about the history that my government controlled education hid from me, and learning more about some of the history of past generations of my family as well as other families, I have had a bit of an attitude adjustment.

Is this really the “suckiest generation”? From where did this generation arise? Did this generation create itself? Did this generation simply choose to be who they are?

Are they not the children and product of the previous generations? Did this generation allow the international bankers to seize control of our money supply and enslave us to the debt that we now face? Did this generation establish the universities and train the liberal professors who promoted much of the destructive misunderstandings of this generation? Which generation paid for those professors to be trained? Which generation sent their children to be deceived by these goons? Which generation allowed the First World War? Which generation allowed the Second World War? Which generation allowed theology to be replaced by psuedo-psychology, that is, psychology which does not even admit the existence of the psuche or psyche, that is, the soul?

The list of things that were allowed and were perpetrated by the previous generations is endless. But as one examines the things that were done and tolerated in the previous several generations, how can anyone be surprised that a generation of confusion and disarray would be generated? Considering all of the compromises that were accepted, especially in the religious sphere and then also in the so-called realm of science, to what would this new generation anchor?

The movie industry immediately began working to reshape the thinking of its audiences. Promiscuity, licentiousness, and divorce were being presented as things that should not be counted as negative and to be shunned. Racial discrimination continued to prevail for many, while morality lost its place. The US government dragged the nation into unjustified conflicts around the world one after another. It was the previous generations who “killed God,” and allowed the insane religion of evolution to be established over the people to steal away their one true source of hope and identity. Family stability was being undermined more and more. Materialism and hedonism became more and more the way of life.

These things did not originate with the baby boom generation. But they did most assuredly influence them, shaping their thinking and beliefs, ultimately robbing them of the things that provide confidence and security.

Was it the baby boom generation that allowed the Social Security Act to replace family responsibility for the elderly? Was it the BBG who allowed the churches to be infiltrated by imposters who preached tolerance as the new love and turned the seminaries and churches into cesspools for the effluence of historical criticism?

Look at the way of the grandparents in the churches today? Are they holding fast to the Truth or are they just smiling and trying not to make waves? Do they even believe in making waves anymore? Who empowered the AARP to such levels of influence and power? Who continually cries that they should receive hundreds of times more in Social Security benefits than they ever contributed?

These things were not brought about by the baby boom generation. The baby boom generation reacted to these things. Many of the BBG reactions were exactly what they are accused of being, but they did not act alone, nor were they even the initial instigators.

Does this excuse the BBG of its inestimable number of flaws and mistakes and even evil choices? Of course not. But if the BBG is the only generation on whom the blame falls, then the truth will never be addressed.

Is it not amazing that those, and often of the preceding generation, who are the quickest to quote the Lord Jesus as saying, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” almost always divorce this from its context? Moreover, is it not amazing how this admonition is used as an excuse for judging those who rightly discriminate against genuine injustice and wrongdoing?

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

Does “my” generation, the baby boom generation, need to hear the honest judgment concerning its errors? Is this not a silly question? However, does not the preceding generation and the one before that and the succeeding generation need also to seek the doctor to have the beams removed from their eyes before judging the baby boomers?

As I consider my own judgment of “my” generation, I feel considerable shame. What should be done about this? Well, on my part, I look to the Lord, who has forgiven me from eternity and has taken on my frail human form in order to redeem me and take my sins for me in order that I may receive the forgiveness that He pronounced already to the first two sinners of the very first generation and throughout history to every successive generation down to the present day. I will most surely point out what I observe as wrong, but not so much with the intent of blaming someone, but with the hope of showing the way to the path where all blaming is lifted from us and God’s own righteousness and holiness and reconciliation are declared to be ours. If even a few people will hear it, what a change they will experience in their own hearts and lives! What joy we shall share together, as we continually are called together by the Holy Spirit to receive the peace that only God can give and gives freely without measure or limit.

+ + +

A Love Letter

This is a letter that I wrote today to someone for whom I have deep and abiding love. Personal points have been removed, but perhaps someone reading this can apply it personally for personal benefit.

† † †


I have something to share that may be of some help to you in your internal struggles. Consider the following:

The things that you do, if they are from pure motives, are not done so that someone cannot say that you did not do thus and so, but rather they are done simply from loving concern and care. If truly your actions flow from the love of God in Christ, then no one can effectively accuse you otherwise. You will be able to stand firm in God’s love, unmoved by anything that may confront you. God’s love and works are our defense, not our love and actions. Our love fails. Our actions are corrupt. Our faith and trust are false. But Christ bore our sins, our weaknesses, our falseness of faith, our failures, our condemnation.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

Therefore, do not walk after the flesh. Do not live looking to your own faith, your own attempts at loving actions, your own devotion to God. Look not to these but to the faithfulness of God in Christ, to the salvific works of Jesus, to the means of grace. These are the things wherein we walk in spirit. In these no condemnation exists.

Think on these things. You will find them to be the way of surety.

I Never Knew You

These are harsh words. They are spoken by the Prince of Peace, the Savior of the world.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

“I never knew you.” This is spoken by the one who is born unto us from eternity. He says this of those who have called upon His name and have done what appear to be mighty and good things in His name. In fact, He does not even discount their claims. It seems, from what Jesus says, that they are correct in what they say, that they did indeed do all of these mighty works. They preached and prophesied and cast out devils according to the power of the name of Jesus. Yet He says to them in the day of judgment that they are workers of iniquity whom He has never known as His own workers and disciples.

Occasionally I visit the web site of the congregation in which I grew up. I was baptized at the fount in this congregation. I was confirmed there. I was ordained there. I preached there. But as I see what is happening, as I have watched the congregation change from what I knew to what it now is, as I see what is on the opening page of their web site, I wonder whether I ever knew them.

This is what I found today on their home page of:

+

I see this and I wonder who these people are. For nearly 20 years I warned my family and friends of the erosion of the true faith and the theft of the preaching of the pure Gospel and of the pure administration of the sacraments that was occurring there and within the LC-MS. Many of the people I once knew have left this world, hopefully while the Gospel was still their true hope. But the congregation is in turmoil. My family has disintegrated and splintered. Finally, my mother has stopped attending there, though she still clings to the dead church body.

I find myself realizing that perhaps the church that I thought that I knew never existed, or at least, as it now is, it has become something entirely foreign to me, something that I never knew.