Your Brain: The Final Frontier

Discovering the obvious and beating it like a dead horse.

Faith Leaders or Culture Followers?

In the photograph you see above this blog, you see a bunch of ministers and preachers who look quite impassioned. But they are not impassioned about God. They are impassioned about an agenda that has been thrust upon them by less than 4% of the population of the United States. Because of this, they put on their Sunday best (most of them don’t dress like this 90% of the time) and stepped in front of a camera held by an activist who wants to use this image to rationalize behavior that is totally contrary to nature, Scripture and the moral code that has developed out of nature and Scripture. The religious officials pictured above are not leaders, they are followers and they want you and your children to join them on the wide and easy path to destruction.

If you love your children and grandchildren, you need to be aware of the most dangerous influence in American politics, culture and education. It is called the Human Rights Campaign which is abbreviated as HRC, not to be confused with Hillary Clinton, although the HRC and Hillary Rodham Clinton are basically clones.

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBT) advocacy and lobbying organization in the United States. The HRC envisions a world where LGBT people are ensured equality and embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community. By “equality” they really mean “superiority”. But they don’t want to stop in the vague and generic “community”. The HRC wants your business, your school, your church and even your home to embrace all the beliefs and goals of the LGBT agenda. And they have extensive plans and a lot of money behind their strategies which is allowing them to influence lawmakers to pass laws (sexual orientation and gender identity a.k.a. SOGI laws) that will force you to obey if you are not willing to do so willingly.

For instance, the HRC has a program called Project One which is an effort to create LGBT superiority in the Deep South. A significant part of the program is “Welcoming Schools”, through which the HRC can train teachers and help stock school libraries with books which glorify the homosexual lifestyle, transgenderism and other behaviors. This program starts with kids before they are even in pre-school and continues through their high school years. Some of the books suggested are: The Adventures of Tulip, Birthday Wish Fairy. S. Bear Bergman.  (Pre-K – 3) Follow Tulip as he deals with the birthday wishes of all the nine-year-olds in North America. Tulip receives a wish from a child known as David who wishes to live as Daniela. He doesn’t understand how to help, so he seeks the wise counsel of the Wish Fairy Captain. Introducing Teddy: A gentle story about gender and friendship. Jess Walton. (Pre-K – K)  Teddy introduces the youngest readers to understanding gender identity and transition in an accessible and heart-warming story about being true to yourself and being a good friend. Red: A Crayon’s Story. Michael Hall. (Pre-K – 1)  A blue crayon mistakenly labeled as “red” suffers an identity crisis. Almost everyone tries to “help” him be red until a friend offers a new perspective. He’s blue! About finding the courage to be true to your inner self. This can be read on multiple levels. Donovan’s Big Day. Lesléa Newman, (Pre-K – 2)  Donovan’s Big Day captures the excitement of  a young boy as he and his extended family prepare for the boy’s two moms’ wedding. A picture book about love, family, and marriage.

There are dozens and dozens of books recommended for the “youngest readers”, and there are lesson plans and training to help the teachers ensure that each of their students is thoroughly indoctrinated in the way the HRC wants these kids to think and believe as they mature into future Social Justice Warriors. These books are all fiction because reality has not provided them any material yet… And it never will.

But the HRC doesn’t just focus on its own selection of books. They want you and your children to understand the Bible their way too. On the HRC website, you can find an article in which Jimmy Creech, a former United Methodist pastor, explains how 2000 years of Christianity has misinterpreted the Bible to classify homosexual behavior as unnatural. The article is titled: What the Bible says about homosexuality. What the Bible says about marriage.

I’ll leave the article content in normal type and I’ll add my comments in blue.

Q: Dear Mr. Creech:

What is at the heart of the position that the Bible is clear on the subject “that homosexuality is forbidden by God?” I know about Leviticus, but are there similar passages with reference to women? How do you view the Bible’s (or God’s) position?

Apparently Susan (assuming Susan actually exists) is looking for a way to argue that two women can engage in a homosexual relationship and remain faithful to their Christian faith. 

A: Dear Susan,
At the heart of the claim that the Bible is clear “that homosexuality is forbidden by God” is poor biblical scholarship and a cultural bias read into the Bible. He’s referencing Over 4000 years of biblical scholarship and hundreds if not thousands of different cultures, but nevermind all that, Mr. Creech is here to finally set Jews and Christians straight on what should have been taught and believed for 30 or 40 centuries . The Bible says nothing about “homosexuality” as an innate dimension of personality. Does the Bible say anything is an innate dimension of personality? The answer is no. So why would Mr. Creech start with this? He does so to “frame the issue” so he can talk about this in a way that makes it seem like he’s coming at it from a religious standpoint, but he’s really just spouting his own personal opinion. By building up an irrelevant issue “the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as an innate dimension of personality”, former Reverend Creech is now free to say anything he wants and in doing so, he doesn’t have to answer Susan’s question. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times. This is a fascinating claim, especially from a former Methodist minister. Is he claiming that God did not know how to deal with sexual orientation as He inspired the writers to put down His word? Is he also saying that the Nation of Israel and the Greeks and the people in apostolic times were too ignorant to grapple with same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior? I’m all ears Mr. Creech. I hope you can elaborate on this with citations to reliable sources. As you read on, you will find that he can’t reference reliable sources because he’s making it all up. There are references in the Bible to same-gender sexual behavior, and all of them are undeniably negative. But what is condemned in these passages is the violence, idolatry and exploitation related to the behavior, not the same-gender nature of the behavior. There are references in the Bible to different-gender sexual behavior that are just as condemning for the same reasons. But no one claims that the condemnation is because the behavior was between a man and a woman. I’m sure you can think of passages that easily prove Mr. Creech wrong. For instance, let’s look at John 8, the famous but strangely misunderstood passage about the woman caught in adultery. Here, there is no violence, idolatry or exploitation on the part of the woman. She was simply caught in an immoral situation. Everyone can understand that. And the situation appears to have been between a man and a woman. Why do I use this as my prime example of showing Mr. Creech’s ignorance? Because of the last verse (v 11) of the story when Christ tells the woman, “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

Jesus loved the sinner, but condemned the sin. People like Mr. Creech are disinterested in John 8:11, because Jesus says the immoral behavior is to stop. That’s not the kind of talk the LGBT activists like to grapple with.

I suggest you consider other stories such as the Samaritan woman at the well, David and Bathsheba or Abraham and Hagar. In each of these we have extramarital sexual conduct between a male and a female which resulted in chastisement as we saw in John 8, as well as consequences for David and Abraham. Each of these shows the foolishness of Mr. Creech’s effor to justify homosexual behavior as natural and Christian. 

There was no word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” These words were invented near the end of the 19th century when psychoanalysts began to discover and understand sexuality as an essential part of the human personality in all of its diversity. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that the Bible says anything at all about it. The writers of the Bible had neither the understanding of it nor the language for it. Really? So in the late 1800’s publishers started adding words to Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10, or 1 Timothy 1:10? So we won’t find any words which describe homosexual behaviors in any Bibles printed prior to the late 1800’s? Come on, we know that is false Mr. Creech! Over the centuries, many words have developed and been adapted to describe things that were long understood, but simply called different things. We can’t focus on the english word in our Bible and hinge our belief or disbelief on whether that english word existed long ago. Context is essential, translations are important and common sense is indispensable. In the verses I just mentioned, it is clear that same-sex sexual interaction is not supported by Scripture. In fact, it is classified as a serious sin. Not the MOST serious, but certainly as serious as adultery, prostitution, fornication, etc… 

There is only one reference to sexual behavior between women, and that is in Romans 1:26. The context of this reference has to do with Gentiles rejecting the true God to pursue false gods; i.e., idolatry. And, the sexual behavior described is orgiastic, not that of a loving, mutual, caring, committed relationship. What is condemned is the worship of false gods. You have got to be kidding me Mr. Creech. This is insanity. Let’s look at the actual words in Scripture and in context and see if your analysis holds water: 

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.  and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

Okay, so to be fair, prior to this passage, the people Paul describes were worshipping idols. But then the entire context turns to the “degrading passions”. Paul is not saying the behavior was idolatry and he isn’t saying it was “orgiastic”. What Paul does very clearly describe is extremely immoral behavior which followed the idolatry. This kind of sounds like our culture today, doesn’t it? But then Paul finishes with the perfect description of Mr. Creech: “…they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Yikes. Mr. Creech is fulfilling a prophesy and it is not a good one.

“Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Luke 17:1-3

Mr. Creech: Repent.

Sexuality is a wonderful gift from God. It is more than genital behavior. It’s the way we embody and express ourselves in the world. But we cannot love another person intimately without embodying that love, without using our bodies to love. And that does involve genital behavior. Huh? I think someone needs to investigate Mr. Creech’s family ties. He clearly misunderstands the different types of love. Apparently he either has erotic love (eros) or no love at all. Sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster these days doesn’t it?  But we know there are different types of love and the greatest is agape love, which is the self-sacrificing type of love that Christ has for the Church and for you and me (even Mr. Creech). Other types are storge and philia but it is unclear if Mr. Creech thinks that all four require some sort of sexual contact. Yikes. Sexual love is for the purpose of giving and receiving pleasure with our most intimate partner. Um, no. It isn’t, it has never been and it will never be this way. Where is Mr. Creech getting this stuff, from romance novels? Maybe he should check his Bible to see if it was written by Nora Roberts. While pleasure and intimacy is a necessary part of sexual love, it is not the primary or sole goal. Sex is for creating life. This is how we all get here and this is how we all make sure civilization continues (several European countries are learning this the hard way). Luckily for us, sex is very pleasurable when done well, and this means that it is done with one person, exclusively, with an openness to life and as a free gift of self to the other. It is a means of deepening and strengthening the intimate union that exists. It certainly should be, but only after all the other necessities are present: Marriage, openness to life, free gift of self, etc… This can only be healthy and good if our behavior is consistent with who we are and with whom we love, and when we are true to our own sexuality and orientation. “Sexuality and orientation” are malleable to guys like Mr. Creech. This is why the HRC loves them as they love “gender identity”. These are all relative terms and can mean whatever the person using them wants them to mean. And they can change their definition in order to suit their current desires. No, it is much better to go with God’s plan:

“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’.” Genesis 1:27-28


Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken;. Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23-24

See? God already thought of a design for human beings, family, civilization and the population of the planet. No matter how hard we try to invent our own plan, it is bound to fail because God is God and we are not.

In regard to marriage, it’s important to remember that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture that assumed men were in control and women were subject to them. Mr. Creech is once again forgetting or possibly ignoring, that God is omnipotent, which means God didn’t screw up when He inspired the authors of the Bible. No Christian, worth his or her weight in papyrus would dare suggest that Scripture is in error on something as important as the dignity of more than 1/2 of all humans. He also forgets that Christianity has done more to highlight the dignity of women than any other belief, system or ideology in human history. But since he has an undiscerning mind, he probably can’t see that. Marriage was not an equal partnership, but a matter of a man owning a woman or women as property. Women provided men companionship, children and labor. Certainly, love between the man and woman or women could develop, but love was not the basis of marriage. Hmmm… It sounds like Mr. Creech has been reading from the Quran, not the Bible. Should I point out Ephesians 5:21-33?

Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.”

 I emphasized some parts of Ephesians that typically get overlooked. In a nutshell, a husband is to give agape love to his wife, which is the self-sacrificing love for the good of the other. This is how Christ loves us as shown through the torture and torment he experienced in his Passion and death. And if, IF, we as husbands are living this love for our wives, our wives should respect us. The other side of the coin is that if we are not giving agape love, we should not expect, nor can we demand, respect from anyone, much less our wife.

Consequently, the biblical concept of marriage is not appropriate today. Mr. Creech, you don’t understand the biblical concept of marriage, so you should not be trying to give anyone any advice.  We no longer accept the inferiority of women and superiority of men. Actually, Christianity never has. American culture has, but only since it became predominantly pagan in about 1965-1970. You want to talk about treating women as inferior? Let’s talk about human sex trafficking, the porn industry, the music and movie industry, locker room talk, the fashion industry, etc…  We no longer accept marriage to be a property transaction. The concept of marriage has evolved throughout history. Today, we understand it to be a voluntary spiritual relationship based on love, respect, mutuality and commitment. We already know Mr. Creech’s definition of love – it has to include sex. I wonder what he considers a “spiritual relationship”? Maybe “he had him at hello”? It was serendipitous? Or some other Hollywood clip captures the spirit of the relationship?

Respect, mutuality and commitment: Again, these are words that can easily be defined differently depending on the person’s goal. Ask Andrew Sullivan about the different definition the LGBT applies to the word “committed” when it comes to a same-sex relationship. In his book Virtually Normal, he says There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. . . .The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”

In other words the two individuals are in a “committed” relationship, but both know the other will occasionally have sex with other people. Umm…that is not committed. I’m sorry to have to point that out. 

What really matters is the quality of the relationship, not the gender of the persons involved. And marriage is created not by religious ceremony or civil government. It is created by the persons involved who make their commitments to one another. Whether or not there is a religious ceremony to celebrate the marriage or marriage license to legalize it, the marriage two people make together in private is real and valid and should be honored as such. I hasten to add that marriage should never be understood as a requirement for two people in relationship. Intimate relationships must not always create a marriage commitment. Marriage is a lifelong commitment that not everyone is willing to make or should make. Being single in an intimate relationship is an honorable choice. I am confident I don’t even have to write about how insane this is. You have to want to believe this in order to think that it makes any sense at all. If you believe this, you have so thoroughly dimmed your intellect, no amount of truth will turn any lights on in your head. 

How do I view God’s position on “homosexuality?” I believe lesbian, gay and bisexual people to be a part of God’s wondrous creation, created to be just who they are, and completely loved and treasured by God. He agrees with the Catholic Church on this. However, God didn’t create bisexuals, homosexuals, etc…, He created persons, male and female persons, with free will. We have the freedom to choose to behave in any way we desire, including but not limited to the way God wants us to behave. Mr. Creech apparently believes people are primarily bundles of desires, feelings and emotions who must behave the way their desires, feelings and emotions guide them, even if this means they live very unhealthy lives. 

I believe God does not intend for any one to be alone but to live in companionship. What does this mean? Companionship can mean friends, family, a spouse and many other relationships. Does Mr. Creech’s “companionship” necessitate sexual contact?

And I believe God expects healthy loving relationships to include sexual love. Oh, I see we have our answer. If you are a companion, you need to have sexual contact, none of this philia or storge or agape, it is all eros. He sounds like Hugh Heffner, or maybe Miley Cyrus. 

The Bible doesn’t say this, of course. Mr. Creech never lets that get in the way of his god though. But neither does it deny it. Actually, the Bible is very clear on marriage between a man and a woman being procreative. It is the entire storyline of the Bible. Isn’t it interesting that over more than 3,000 years, God inspired dozens of writers to put His story of salvation history into writing and He never once had two men or two women being in a marriage or even a “committed” sexual relationship? Isn’t it interesting that every single reference to same-sex sexual behavior is negative (as admitted above by Mr. Creech himself)? Isn’t it interesting that the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is about marriage and family? God Himself even chose a mother and a foster father for His own Son and invites us to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb at the end of our earthly sojourn. From Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, David, Tobit, Zachariah, Joseph and finally, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in Revelation, God uses families to give us His plan for our salvation. Satan hates it and wants to put a barrier in your salvation Mr. Creech, and you are taking the bait, hook, line and millstone.

I believe this to be true not only because of the Bible’s emphasis on the goodness of God’s creation and the supreme value of love (Oh? But just erotic love Mr. Creech?), but because of the greater understanding of human nature that we have available to us today. I beg to differ. I think the Human Right Campaign, Mr. Creech, Radical Feminism, Marxism and many other ideologies are doing all they can to distort our understanding of human nature. As a evidence of this, see how the LGBT lifestyle breeds depression, addiction, suicidal ideation, serious health problems and regret. I do not believe that God intends us to live in the small world of ancient biblical culture, but rather in God’s larger evolving world informed by science, reason and experience. I agree. Why don’t you join us Mr. Creech? There is a difference between the three worlds represented here. Certainly ancient biblical culture existed, as does today’s opportunity to be informed by science, reason and experience. But you, Mr. Creech, choose to live apart from both of these and have chosen a fantasy land of self-realization. The fact is, the Christian teaching on homosexual behavior has been primarily a moral teaching for 2000 years. But recently, science, reason and experience have done an amazing job of showing us that homosexual behavior is not only immoral, thereby placing the participants at serious risk of losing their soul to Satan for all of eternity, but it is incredibly unhealthy as shown in the health problems linked above. People who live the LGBT lifestyle adopt a lifestyle which is physically, mentally and socially unhealthy. This means that even if you have rationalized the immorality away, you still have to deal with the impact your decisions are going to have on you and your body right here on earth.

So ends former Reverend Creech’s stream of fantasy. Therefore my question to Mr. Creech is this: How can you, knowing that you are promoting a lifestyle that will more than likely cause illness, suffering and an untimely death, not to mention the potential loss of a soul to Satan, continue to lead people down this path?

Feel free to correct me, but I think we know the answer to that question. You don’t really believe in the Bible and you don’t care about the temporal consequences. Former Reverend Creech, is that a millstone tied to your neck, or are you just unhappy to see me?

Related Posts

Returning To Normal
The Vaccine Mandates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.