Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

      Basically, the reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord.  Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.
      All people have sinned against God.  But, God is infinitely holy and righteous.  He must punish the sinner, the Law breaker.  If He didn't, then His law is not law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment.  The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God.  Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God.  Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself.  That is why Jesus is God in flesh.  He is both divine and human.  He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:5-6) and He fulfilled it perfectly.  Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.
     The following outline is an attempt to break this down, step by step, using scripture and logic.  I hope that it helps you understand why God is our savior and not some created thing.  Also, I hope that it helps you understand that you must trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins; that you can do nothing on your own to merit salvation from God. 

1. God exists.
   1. Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
2. God is infinite
   1. Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."

   2. Psalm 147:5, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."

   3. Jer. 23:24, "Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."

3. God is holy
   1. Isaiah 6:3, "And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”
   2. Rev. 4:8 "And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come."
4. God is righteous
   1. Neh. 9:32-33, "Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who dost keep covenant and lovingkindness, Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant before Thee, Which has come upon us, our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and on all Thy people, From the days of the kings of Assyria to this day. ³³“However, Thou art just in all that has come upon us."
   2. 2 Thess. 1:6, "For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you."
5. Therefore, God is infinitely holy and just.
6. Furthermore, God speaks out of the character of what He is.
   1. Matt. 12:34, "...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."
7. God spoke the Law
   1. Exodus 20:1-17, "Then God spoke all these words, saying, ²“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me...."
8. Therefore, the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it is Holy and good.
   1. Rom. 7:12, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."
9. Furthermore, to break the Law of God is to offend Him since it is His Law that we break.  This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.
10. Furthermore, it is also right that God punish the Law breaker.  To not punish the Law breaker (sinner) is to allow an offense against His holiness to be ignored.
    1. Amos 2:4, "Thus says the Lord, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they rejected the law of the Lord And have not kept His statutes."
    2. Rom. 4:15, "...for the Law brings about wrath."
11. God says that the person who sins must die (be punished).  The wages of sin is death.
    1. Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."
    2. Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
12. The sinner needs to escape the righteous judgment of God or he will face damnation.
    1. Rom. 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
    2. Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
13. But, no sinner can undo an infinite offense since to please God and make things right, he must obey the Law, which is the standard of God's righteous. character. 
    1. Gal. 2:16, "...by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
    2. Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
14. But the sinner cannot fulfill the law because he is sinful (in the flesh).
    1. Rom. 8:3, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son..."
15. Since the sinner cannot fulfill the law and satisfy God, it follows that only God can do this.
    1. This is simple logic.  If we are unable to fulfill the Law, then we will be punished by it.  But, since God desires us to be saved, the Law must be satisfied.  Since we cannot keep the Law and it must be satisfied, then the only one capable of keeping the Law must keep the Law:  God.
16. Jesus is God in flesh.
    1. John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....¹⁴And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
    2. Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
17.  Jesus was also a man under the Law.
    1. 1 Tim. 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
    2. Gal. 4:5-6, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, ⁵in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
18. Jesus became sin for us and bore our sins in His body on the cross, thus fulfilling the Law.
    1. 2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
    2. 1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
    3. Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. ⁴in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
19. Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place.
    1. Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
    2. Gal. 3:13, "Christ 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."
    3. Eph. 5:2, "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

The Deception of Freemasonry

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES:
The Watchtower Society

FALSE PROPHECIES

For years I have been collecting old Watchtower books for evidence in disproving their claims.
Following is a synopsis of false prophecies accumulated over the years.

What does Scripture say about false prophets?

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN FOR NEW TESTAMENT BELIEVERS?
[Does Jesus condemn or condone homosexuality?]

It may seem strange and even foolish that I should even ask such questions. Aren't the Scriptures clear on this subject? Apparently not, if you listen to the many voices now embracing this life style. There are scholars and theologians who adamantly try to defend their homosexual life style based on the Scriptures.

While some do not believe that homosexual sex is even mentioned or described in Scripture, others freely admit that it is mentioned and was a capital crime under Moses, and strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul as being worthy of death. But among the latter it is argued that neither of these condemnations in the Old or the New Testaments applies to homosexual Believers in Christ. That is a twist we will examine carefully, as most have probably never heard of such a defense.

The purpose of this paper is not to single out or come down upon homosexuals. I have never written a paper entitled: "Is Stealing a Sin for New Testament Believers?" or, "Is Bearing False Witness a Sin?" or, "Is Murder a Sin?" So why "homosexuality? Because more and more, the media, entertainment, the government, the Church, the general population of America and much of the world, no longer believes it is a sin to be discriminated against, whereas even the basest of nations have laws against stealing, false witness, and murder.

So, my purpose here is not to judge, but to specifically establish whether homosexuality is a sin or not a sin for Believers in Christ under the New Covenant.

If it is not a sin, and these practices are normal and virtuous, then we should not be speaking or discriminating against them. But if it is a sin, then we should certainly speak out against it just as we should against adultery, idolatry, lying, stealing, etc. Let's try and look at the Scriptural facts with unbiased, open minds. If we are interested in obedience to Jesus Christ then we should be eager to know the truth one way or the other.

Most homosexuals do not argue with Lev. 20:13:

They concede that this verse is speaking of homosexuality-sex between members of the same gender. Their argument is that it no longer applies to them as Believers in Christ under the New Covenant, stating that they are no longer under the law of Moses.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into what is meant by no longer being "under the law." But I will give just a few comments concerning whether Lev. 20:13 is still binding on Christian Believers.

Over the years I have received some bizarre reasons from the gay community regarding why they don't think homosexuality is a sin. Here is an example I received this week from a self-professed lesbian:

"Also, don't you find it interesting that when Jesus walked the earth, he never once brought up the subject? If it was such a sin, it would be one of the Ten Commandments, don't you think?"

No, I don't think so at all. Lev. 20:13 does not need to be one of the Ten Commandments before it has any jurisdiction over Christian Believers.

Jesus did not address child-molestation either; neither is it one of the Ten Commandments. Neither did Jesus address drug abuse, nor pornography, smoking, spousal abuse, or torture. Does this fact therefore condone such sins and atrocities? Are we to assume therefore that none of these are wrong or sinful? I hope we are not foolish enough to believe that if something is not mentioned in the Bible, then it shouldn't be considered a sin.

Listen: One of the Ten Commandments was against "stealing." But stealing did not carry the death sentence. Yet witchcraft (not one of the Ten Commandments) did carry the death sentence (Lev. 20:27). Having sexual intercourse with an animal carried the death sentence for both men and women (Lev. 20:15-16).

Who among us would deign to suggest to their children that having sex with farm yard animals is now okay since it is not condemned in the New Testament by Jesus, neither is one of the Ten Commandments? When all else fails, try a little common sense and basic morality.

The actual words "homosexual" and "lesbian" are not found in the Scriptures. The word "homosexual" is reported to be a German invention to euphemize and take the place of the distasteful word "sodomite." Although the word "sodomy" as used today may not even have a direct connection with the sexual sins of historical Sodom.

While the Scriptures do not speak to us in crude street language, describing the actual mechanics of homosexual acts, nonetheless, the practice of same sex lust assuredly is mentioned and condemned in Scripture as a sin that needs to be repented of just as idolatry, adultery, stealing, murder, and all sins.

The word homosexual is applied to both men and women whose sexual preference is with one of the same gender. Male homosexuals are generally called "gay" or "gay men," while female homosexuals are generally called "gay women" or "lesbians."

Most gay men will acknowledge that male homosexuality is mentioned in Scripture. What may be alarming to many of my readers is that while they concede that it is mentioned and talked about, they deny that it is categorically a sin. On the other hand, many argue that gay women or lesbianism are not mentioned in Scripture at all. I will briefly comment on the one main Old Testament Scripture forbidding homosexuality. Below is an excerpt from the gaychurch.org web site regarding Lev. 18:22 & 20:13.

Professor Soards tells us:

"Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God." This is because God was so determined that His people who were being formed into a new nation would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship...

Even if we consider that morality was a factor in this rule, it is part of the Code, and when the Code became obsolete, as it is under Christ, that rule, as part of the Code, became obsolete. These verses in Leviticus have nothing to say to us today beyond the eternal principle of the need for purity in the worship of God. If the immorality expressed in them happens to be a principle for all time, then it will be found elsewhere in the Bible. (For heterosexuals it is found in Roman 1 which clearly condemns same-gender sex by heterosexuals. There is nothing in the Bible to support any finding about homosexuals.)" By Bruce Lowe Appendix B: Bible Passages on Same-Gender Sex (Underline emphasis is mine)

Just a couple of comments: Clearly it is admitted that same gender sex was condemned under Moses (being punishable by death), and that it was a practice of "Baal worship." And so it suggested that homosexuality was not inherently wrong, but rather it was wrong because it was practiced in the worship of Baal.

Apparently, had not the pagans used homosexuality in their worship of Baal, God would have allowed it. I think not.

It is then suggested that since homosexuality was a part of the things forbidden under the law of Moses (which they call "the Code"), but Christian Believers are not under the Code, but under Christ, therefore, "the Code became obsolete."

Well I have already commented on the absurdity of this with regarding things like bestiality, which I seriously doubt they would condone under this same "became obsolete" argument.

So what is the argument for not following the admonition of Paul regarding same gender sex in Rom. 1:26-27? Well you just read it:

Now I must admit that statement overwhelms me. Since it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking of same gender sex in Rom. 1:26-27, what are they to do? Well, they dogmatically state that Paul is not condemning homosexuality sex between homosexuals, but rather they state that Paul is CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUAL SEX BETWEEN HETEROSEXUALS! Is that not akin to suggesting that it is not wrong for alcoholics to get drunk, but rather it is wrong for NON-ALCOHOLICS to get drunk?

We will now see whether the Scriptures substantiate the above assertion that:

"There is nothing in the Bible to support any finding about homosexuals."

We will first look at three sexual perversions closely allied with homosexuality.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk: paramours], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Gk: catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: sodomites] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

What are paramours, catamites, and sodomites?

paramours (King James, 'fornicators')-Strong's #4205 pornos "to sell, a male prostitute (as venal), a debauchee (libertine): fornicator, whoremonger."

prostitute: "one who solicits and accepts payment for sex" (American Heritage College Dictionary).

venal: "capable of betraying honor, duty, or scruples for a price, corruptible" (AHCD).

debauchee/debauchery: "to corrupt morally, to lead away from excellence or virtue, indulge in dissipation [lacking moral restraint, indulgence in sensual pleasure], orgies [unrestrained sexual activities],"

libertine: "one without moral restraint" (AHCD)

catamites (King James, 'effeminate')-Strong's #3120 malakos "soft, fine clothing, a catamite, effeminate."

catamite: "a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man" (AHCD).

effeminate: "having characteristics more often associated with women than a man" (AHCD).

sodomites (King James, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'-Strong's #733 arsenokoites "a sodomite, defile self with mankind."

The elements of the Greek word arsenokoites are "male-lier"-A male who lies with a male. "Male bed partners"--Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.

 

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators [Gk: 'pornos'-paramour/male prostitutes] ...with such an one not to eat" (I Cor. 5:9-11).

"For this you know, that no whoremonger [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] ...has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God" (Eph. 5:5).

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for ...whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] ...and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Tim. 1:9-10).

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute] and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4).

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male prostitute], and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).

"Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers [Gk: parnos-paramour/male prostitute], and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes [practices] a lie" (Rev. 22:14-15).

"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Paul states that none who continue to commit the sins listed above "shall inherit the kingdom of God." These sins need to be repented of and put in the past. And that is what the chosen Few in these Gentiles churches were doing.

Notice Paul's consolation to those who repented of these sinful deeds of the flesh:

"And such [unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners] WERE [past tense, but not now] some of you but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

Next we will see whether the Scriptures actually and specifically speak of both male and female homosexuality. Here are a couple more statements from http://gaychurch.org:

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says:

We shall see.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even [1] their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also [2] the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).

There is a lot more contained in this verse than perceived in the eye of English.

First of all, all that is to follow in this dissertation by Paul comes under the general category of "vile affections." The word vile in this verse is Strong's #819 atimia, which means, "infamy, indignity, disgrace, dishonor, reproach, shame, vile." And so the things of which Paul is going to speak, are things that are: infamous, indignant, disgraceful, dishonorable, reproachable, shameful, and vile. Not a pretty picture; not a dissertation on godly virtue and morality.

First Paul mentions:

Some foolishly bury their heads in the sand and suggest that nothing immoral is actually mentioned here. Does it sound to you that leaving the natural use of something and using it in a way that is against nature burning in their lust, is a good thing? No, I think not. Okay, but can we determine exactly what it is that was being misused and against nature? Yes, we certainly can.

We just saw that it has to do with affections that women have that are against nature. That is, against the nature of the proper use of something ('did change the natural USE'). But what? Just what is that certain something that women change from the natural use of into something that is vile, disgraceful, and shameful? What is it that they are using disgracefully because of unnatural vile affections? I'll now show you maybe more precisely than you really want to know, what it was that "...their women did change the natural use [of] into that which is against nature..."

Do we think Paul is referring to the improper use of their ears? Did they change the natural use of their eyes? Maybe it was their hands? Did these men and women in question here start using their feet in an unnatural way?

Whatever it was that the women were doing against nature, the men were likewise also doing the very same thing:

"And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..." (Verse 27).

What does Paul mean by "likewise also?" Simple, the Greek for "likewise" is homoios, and it means "similar," "likewise." The Greek for "also" is kai and it means "and, also, even, too, both indeed, likewise."

 Interestingly, we have another verse of Scripture which also uses these same two Greek words and translates them the same:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also [Gk: kai] to them likewise [Gk: homoios]" (Luke 6:31).

We are to treat others in a similar way, as we would want others to treat us. That is how these two words are used in Luke 6:31, and that is how they are used in Rom. 1:27. What the women were doing against nature, the men "likewise also" were doing "against nature." Now then, what was it that they were doing?

The men who were doing likewise also as the women "burned in their lust one [man] toward another [man], MEN WITH MEN..." Okay, lest someone suggest that this is merely human companionship and doesn't involve SEX, let's continue and see just what parts of the human anatomy is being referenced here.

It is so easy when reading Scripture to not pay close attention to all the words. These five words "working that which is unseemly" are translated from only one Greek word, aschemosune, and this word is used only one other time in Scripture, which I will now show you so as to remove all doubt as to its meaning:

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they SEE his shame [aschemosune]" (Rev. 16:15).

Here Jesus is using figurative language. In the same way someone is shamed by taking off all their clothing in public (so will those who do not spiritually watch for Jesus be spiritually shamed).

So what is it that people see when someone is naked? Why, for example, are there many topless beaches around the world where total nudity is not allowed? What shame [aschemosune] is made visible in Rev. 15:16 by walking naked? And what is it that is "working that which is unseemly [aschemosune]" in Rom. 1:27? Some of you are already way ahead of me.

The King James translators have often chosen words of modesty, so as to not offend the sensitive reader.

Strong's Greek Dictionary: "unseemly/shame" #808, aschemosune, "an indecency; by implication the pudenda: shame, which is unseemly."

And just what is the "pudenda?"

The American Heritage College Dictionary: pudendum/ pl. pudenda n. "The human external genital organs, especially of a woman" (p. 1127). There it is.

It was the genital organs of the female that:

"...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature [women with women]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman [and her genital organs], burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working [with each other's genital organs] that which is unseemly" (Rom. 1:26-27).

I will not get anymore graphic than that.

Romans 1:26-27 is a very strong condemnation of the list of vile affections starting with sex between women with women, and men with men. And professing faith in the love and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not turn this perversion into a virtue.

When Isaiah tells us to:

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isa. 58:1).

Should I just keep my mouth shut on this subject?

Few Christians believe that those who practice adultery, stealing, and lying will enter God's Kingdom without repenting. But this is not the case with practicing homosexuals.

Speaking against homosexuality may soon become a hate crime law in which offenders will be prosecuted as criminals. Let's take a closer Scriptural look at this subject while the law still allows it.

Let's look at these verses on homosexuality by the Apostle Paul, in the context of this section of Scripture:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold [back] the truth in unrighteousness... Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which is meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26-32).

This is the largest single list of ungodliness, unrighteousness, sins, crimes, and corruption found anywhere in the entirety of the Scriptures, and notice that heading the list are:

"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"

"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"

"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"

Paul concludes this list of carnal sins by stating: "they which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH" (as is every other sin mentioned). Now the very fact that the perpetrators of such sexual perversions deny they are sins, and large segments of society and government condone these sins, shows how morally decayed our nation is becoming.

In Politics and Government: Most Democratic presidential candidates recently spoke at a gay forum in which they unanimously gave approval to the homosexuals in America. There was a split over whether gays can legally marry partners of the same sex, but as for gay relationships and gay rights they received overwhelming support from these wanna-be presidents of the USA. Likewise it is reported that up to three-quarters of Americans support gay rights and civil unions, but half do not support gay marriage.

In Entertainment: TV dramas, situation comedies, and major films are now glamorizing the gay life. A recent film about two gay cowboys, entitled BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, received rave reviews, such as the following:

In The Church: Chicago-"Flouting what they call a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, more than 80 gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered Lutheran ministers declared their sexuality on Tuesday in hopes of changing a church rule that excludes gay and lesbian clergy who do not live chastely." Is such protesting effective:

Lutherans Vote To Allow Gay Clergy

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Saturday voted to refrain from disciplining clergy in committed same-sex relationships. (The Post Chronicle)

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - The largest U.S. Presbyterian Church body approved a measure on Tuesday that would open the way for the ordination of gays and lesbians under certain circumstances. (Reuters)

After Paul states "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections," he gives us the following list of sins:

"...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly... unrighteous, fornication, wicked, covetous, malicious, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful..." (Rom. 1:27-31).

What justification, pray tell, is there in lifting out the first two sins: "...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...," as being perfectly virtuous (if done out of what gays would call true love) while the rest of the sins remain sins?

By whose authority are the government, the media, and the Church rendering these sins as defendable and virtuous?

It is now both politically incorrect and socially incorrect to speak of these perversions as sin, and now (according to polls) the majority of Americans also either feels pressured, or just cannot see any immorality in homosexuality.

When immorality is condoned and even lauded, it spills over into every aspect of society. Even child rapists are getting off with little more than a slap on the hand and a few months probation. Such behavior in our judicial system forty or fifty years ago would have been outrageous, but few are showing much alarm over such judicial travesties today.

I am not condemning the sinners, but I am condemning the sin and the lax attitudes toward this sin. As Paul clearly states:

How is it that Paul can state: "such were" some of you?

"For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the Glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

God will pardon all of our sins, but they must be put in our past.

If I condoned my own past sins, I never would have repented of them.

"Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world... Among whom also we all had our conduct in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh..." (Eph. 2:2-3).

Continuing:

"For ALL have sinned... Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are PAST, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26).

Now back up to the beginning of Romans 6:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:1-2).

There is salvation available, and it is by grace, not our own personal works of righteousness, but we must first repent. This repentance is also by grace. It is a gift from God just like salvation itself. Once again, we are ALL in the same boat for we have ALL sinned.

Notice next what Paul says after his declaration against a list of 27 major sins. Paul's statement that "...they which commit such things are worthy of DEATH," does not end his declarations on this subject. We must continue into chapter 2:

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judges: for wherein you judge another, thou condemn yourself; for thou that judge do the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

And think you this, O man, that judge them which do such things, and do the same, that thou shall escape the judgment of God? Or despise you the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads thee to REPENTANCE?" (Rom. 2:1-4).

While "Christ died for our sins" (I Cor. 15:3), all sins that Jesus died for must be repented of or that person will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but will rather be raised up in Judgment. Christ dying for the sins of the world is not the final step with the issue of sin and sinners. The final step is to GET THE SIN OUT OF THE SINNER, and that is precisely what will happen, Christ "will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31) and the ungodly "will learn righteousness" (Isa. 26:9). Then and only then will "God be ALL in All" (I Cor. 15:28).

Here is one of the most sobering Scriptures in the entire New Testament:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46).

Jesus Christ personally commissioned Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. What Paul wrote to the churches was under divine inspiration of Jesus Christ. All of these profound life and death declarations of Paul are just as valid as if Jesus Himself declared them.

It has been foolishly stated that virtually anything is permissible including deviant sex, "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone."

But what some can't seem to realize is that it hurts them. Having sex with animals doesn't hurt anyone else, but it sure hurts the one doing it. It is both a perversion of the body and a perversion of the mind.

DOESN'T NATURE TEACH US THE PROPER USE OF SEX?

Numerous species of animals have been seen performing sex on the same gender. Therefore, if this is a part of God's own nature of things among some animals, then surely it is permissible among humans? Oh really? And since when are we to look to the beasts of the field for the proper interpretation of human morality?

Since animals kill and eat each other, does this set a moral standard for people to do the same?

Since numerous species kill and eat their own young, does this justify people killing and eating their own babies?

I WAS BORN THIS WAY
[In search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

From the American Psychological Association:

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual.

GOD IS THE LAW-GIVER AND DETERMINES WHAT IS SIN

When David acknowledged his sins of adultery and murder by having Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed so he could then take Uriah's beautiful wife Bathsheba in adultery, he didn't repent toward Bathsheba, or Uriah, or even the nation of Israel, but rather said:

"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" (Psalm 51:4).

Although David was not a spiritually converted man (he died with murder in his heart, I Kings 2:1-9), he nonetheless, had the sense to know that it is God and not man who determines what is sin and what is righteousness. Any king of any nation has the right to send any soldier to the front line where he may well be killed, and then steal the man's wife back home. But that doesn't make it right in God's eyes.

James informs us that:

"There is one Lawgiver Who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12).

God also inspired Isaiah to write:

"WOE unto them that call evil good and good evil... Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! ...Which justify the wicked [Heb: rasha, 'morally wrong] for reward..." (Isa. 5:20-21 & 23).

Did the Apostle Paul have totally different criteria than that of Isaiah? Was Paul's condemnation of "women with women and men with men" an example of "rasha" (morally wrong), but somehow this same sin to Isaiah would be "good" and not "evil?" Nonsense.

The seventh commandment states: "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). It is generally thought that adultery means one partner of a marriage having sex with a third person. This is a narrow view of the commandment, however. Jesus plainly taught us the spiritual meaning of this commandment:

"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman [Gk: gune, 'a woman; a wife'] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

The word gune can mean a wife, but it is also used many times to represent unmarried women.

So notice the profound implications of Jesus declaration: He quotes the Old Testament commandment against adultery and states that it applies to lusting after a women (not just physically intercourse). And not just someone's wife, but any woman.

Now under Moses, the law against adultery applied equally to women who committed adultery against their husbands. And so, likewise, if a woman just "looks upon a man to lust after him," she has committed adultery with him in her heart.

But does this include women lusting after women, and men lusting after men?"

Of course. Do we think that a man is not allowed to "lust" after a women (which can be legally married together), but it is perfectly okay for a man to "lust" after another man (which can not be legally married together)? And if you think the 7th commandment does not cover this sin, then I assure you that the 10th one does.

THE 7th and 10th COMMANDMENTS BOOKEND HOMOSEXUALITY

If you think that homosexuals don't "LUST" for sex with the same gender, then I believe there is still some cheap swampland available in Florida.

THE 7th COMMANDMENT: Jesus said:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust [Gk: epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after'] after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

Likewise, one breaks the 7th commandment if a woman lusts after a man, or a woman lusts after a woman, or a women lusts after a little boy, or a man lusts after a man, or a man lusts after a little boy, or a little girl. If the "lust" itself BREAKS the commandment, what in the world do we think the actual "act" BREAKS?

THE 10th COMMANDMENT: Paul said:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust [Gk: epithumia, 'a longing (for what is forbidden), concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, lust'] except the law had said, You shall not covet [Gk: epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after']" (Rom. 7:7).

Okay then, if we can all walk and chew gum at the same time, we should not have a problem in putting these two Greek words together. Jesus said that "epithumeo-covet, desire, lust after" breaks the 7th commandment against adultery. And Paul said that the reason that "epithumia-a longing for what is forbidden, concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, and lust" is wrong is because the 10th commandment states "You shall not covet"-"epithumeo, covet, desire, lust after." But wait, there's more.

The 10th commandment goes on to say:

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's" (Ex.20:17).

Now then, let me spell it out for you: Believers in Christ Jesus are NOT to covet [epithumeo-"covet, desire, lust after"] his neighbor's:

WIFE-neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's wife.

MANSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet their neighbor's manservant, whether they be 9 years old or 29 years old.

MAIDSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's maidservant, whether they are 9 years old or 29 years old.

OX OR Donkey-neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's ox or donkey whether for production of meat or to have sex with them.

The teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the 7th commandment, the 10th commandment, the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ, all condemn homosexuality as SIN. This subject is completely book-ended-there is no wiggle room left for justifying the practice of homosexuality in any form.

Does the Bible speak of "illegal sex" and "legal sex?" Yes, it does:

How are we to be sexually gratified? Here's the Scriptural teaching.

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain [remain sexually pure and virtuous], let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [Gk: puroo-'inflamed with lust']" (I Cor. 7:7-9).

So what would the homosexual say to this? Well at least some of them would totally agree. Why do you think that they are trying to get same-sex marriage legalized? Yes, they would agree with Paul-let's get MARRIED.

Back up a few verses for God's answer as to who should be married to whom:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [Gk: porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (I Cor. 7:2).

Paul gives only one answer to the problem of fornication, and it is for each man to have his wife and each woman to have her own husband. Does anyone see Paul suggesting an "alternative life style" in which fornication can be avoided? Does Paul suggest that porneia can be avoided by every man having his own husband, and every woman her own wife?

Paul knew about "women with women and men with men" when he wrote his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1:26-27). Such unions against nature are clearly not acceptable solutions to burning with inflamed sexual emotions, and a way to "avoid fornication/porneia." Peter warns against being willingly ignorant, and Paul sternly warns against "Believers" who "willfully sin?"

"For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10:26-27).

Paul could not have been more clear. To avoid the sin of porneia, we are to [1] MARRY, [2] MEN marry a WIFE, and [3] WOMEN marry a HUSBAND. Men marrying men and women marrying women are not legal options. Men and women who have vile affections, and BURN in their lust, women with women and men with men... are worthy of DEATH (Rom. 1:26-27 & 32).

How many homosexuals would dare insinuate that their passion for one another of the same gender is not "coveting/lust?" Are Believers to think that they can continue living in such sin and somehow be covered by the "the grace of God?"

Long after Christ's resurrection and the introduction of faith, grace, and justification, Paul is still teaching that such burning affections for the same sex are VILE, and worthy of DEATH. And if you can't contain, then get married-MEN TO WIVES AND WOMEN TO HUSBANDS.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that Paul would tell us: "To avoid sexual perversion,  you should enter into a union of sexual perversion?"

The ONLY way to avoid the sins of porneia if one cannot contain one's inflamed desires, is to marry a mate of the opposite sex. When our Creator God Almighty inaugurated holy matrimony, He joined together Adam and Eve, not Kevin & Steve or Alice & Marie!

I know that some homosexuals are arrogant and try to justify their sin. Others hate their sin and wish to stop but can't. We all make choices, and a choice is what we prefer. One may hate the fact that he is a smoker, yet, he "prefers" the feeling he gets from smoking over the feeling he doesn't get when he runs out of cigarettes or tries to quit. To quit you must have a stronger reason for not doing something than you have for doing something. It's all about motivation.

Sometimes just knowing that something is a sin is reason to quit. That is why I quit smoking. I knew it was not good for my health, it was dirty, it was annoying to others, and it was costly, etc. But I did not quit until I became convinced that is was sinning against God.

I enjoyed smoking a LOT when I quit. But sometimes it takes a doctor telling you that you will die if you don't quit a particular life style. But the bottom line is, you won't stop committing the sin unless and until God Almighty has determined that you will quit. And that is equally true for atheists, although they don't know or won't acknowledge that as yet.

Heterosexual men are just as weak when it comes to lusting after women, as homosexuals are when it comes to lusting after members of the same gender. The ONLY way that I know of to break these sins and have victory over them is for God to empower you with a greater motivation to live righteously than to live un-righteously. If what you desire to be is "good," then there is only One Source:

"And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labor, It is the gift of God" (Ecc. 3:13).

"EVERY good gift and EVERY perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

We will continue to pray for all those who desire to come out of the bondage and slavery of "...the sin which does so easily beset us...." (Heb. 12:1).

If you can lose your salvation,
then what must you do to keep it?

If it is possible to lose your salvation, then what must you do in order to keep it?  I've asked this question many times of those who deny eternal security and have received different responses.  But they all, essentially, can be categorized into two areas:  "Remain faithful," and "Be obedient."  Whichever position is taken, both are dependent upon man's faithfulness and ability. 

Now, I am trying to be careful here in drawing conclusions because I do not want to be mistaken in how I represent the "other" side.  But I cannot help but wonder that if our salvation depends upon us remaining faithful and or being obedient, then are we not keeping our salvation by being good?  That's right, by being good and risking works righteousness?

Please understand that I am not saying this as an accusation.  I am only asking the questions and expressing my concern.  Again, if a person says he stays saved by remaining faithful and or being obedient to God, then isn't he saying that he is maintaining his salvation by being good?  It is a good thing to be faithful to God.  It is a good thing to obey God.  But is this how we are saved or stay saved?  Does our salvation rest in anyway on how good we are? 

For me, this is dangerously close to works righteousness. Also, this "maintaining salvation" teaching is the same as that held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses churches (among others).  Of course, I realize that just because false groups teach the same thing doesn't mean the teaching is wrong.  Still, I can't help but wonder if something is amiss.  And, there is another problem.

James 2:10 and Gal. 3:10

• James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
• Gal. 3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'”

A further concern I have is that if anyone were to try and maintain his salvation by being faithful/good, is he then required to keep the whole law?

I believe that those who seek to remain faithful and obedient to God in order to stay saved would say that they are not trying to maintain their salvation by their works, their faithfulness, thei obedience, etc.  At least I hope not.  But, isn't a law an instruction given by God that has a punishment for disobeying it? God commands everyone everywhere to repent, Acts 17:30.  In Exodus 20, God commands that we believe in him.  Can it be said that the command to believe and repent are laws since disobeying them has penalties? Do you see the problem? 

A confession

I'm not a very good Christian.  I know my treacherous and sinful heart.  If my salvation were dependent in any way upon my faithfulness or obedience, then I'm in trouble.  I would never claim that I was able to remain faithful enough or do enough good to maintain my position with God. I just can't go there.  Instead, I rely totally on him to keep me, not me to keep myself.

All that I am and all I need is found in the work of Christ.  Even my ability to believe is God's work (John 6:28-29).  My believing has been granted to me by God (Phil. 1:29).  And, I believe because I was appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48).  Should I then stand before God and man and say that I am keeping my position with God by my own faithfulness?  This is something I can never claim.

That is why I ask people who believe they can lose their salvation and are seeking to maintain it by being faithful, if they take credit for their believing.  If they say yes, they are boasting.  If they say no, then I ask them what makes him think that if God who granted that they believe (Phil. 1:29), appointed them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), chose them before the foundation of the world for salvation (Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13), predestined them (Rom. 8:29-30), and said he will lose none (John 6:39), we'll let you them slip through his fingers when he said it was his will that those who believe would not be lost and would be raised on the last day (John 6:37-40)? 

So, how would you answer the question if you believed that you could lose your salvation?  What must you do to maintain it?

Methods Muslims use to attack Christianity

     When dealing with Muslims it is wise to understand some of the approaches used by them to discredit Christianity.  Much could be written on each of the following subjects with numerous examples.  But, instead, I will simply expound on the areas common among Muslim approaches and point out what to watch for.  

        No. 1      Attack the validity of the Bible

     This is expected.  If the Muslim can undermine the strength and integrity of God's word, then it would be much easier for him to win arguments, confound the Christian, and make converts of those who don't know the truth and power of the Bible.  This is what the devil did in the Garden of Eden.  Satan said, "You truly will not die," (Gen. 3:4).  I am not calling Muslims satanic.  I am simply pointing out that that is how deception begins, by bringing doubt upon God's word, and that this is exactly what Muslims do.  They try and get people to doubt the Bible and then tell you how great Islam is.  Various methods are used here to accomplish this:  

1. Stating that the Bible has numerous contradictions
   1. Of course, I cannot go through all the alleged Bible contradictions here.  But my observation has been that the majority of "biblical contradictions" raised by Muslims are nothing more than examples of their lack of understanding of biblical theology and context.  Always read the context of verses.  Don't let a Muslim simply state that there are contradictions and leave it at that.  Ask him to give you one.  If you cannot answer it, do research and get back to him.  Sure, there are some tough areas of scripture, but there are no contradictions in God's word.¹
2. Criticizing the lack of original manuscripts
   1. The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted.  They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.  Of course, what they fail to mention is:
      1. The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate.  (See the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.)
      2. Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down.  There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit.  So how could he have verified its truth?
      3. Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid.  Why?  Is it because Zaid's copy was better?  If so, how do we know?  Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division?  It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility.
      4. Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved.  But, the mere claim is not enough.  It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.
3. Claiming that the Bible is false because it contradicts the Koran (Qur'an).
   1. This is simply begging the question.  That means that one assumes the validity of the thing that he is trying to prove.  The Muslim assumes the validity of the Qur'an and because it contradicts the Bible, the Bible is wrong.  Well, the Christian can just as easily state that the Koran is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.  But the Muslims would not accept that.  Therefore, why should we accept their argument?

        No. 2      Attempt to set Paul against Jesus

     Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus.  Of course, this is not true.  Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection.  Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him.  So, Paul met Jesus.  Also, Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16.  If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words.
     In addition, many Muslims claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and that Paul is the one who wrote that Jesus was God.  First of all, if they admit that Paul wrote that Jesus was God, then remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16 where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture.  Nevertheless, they sometimes assert that Paul hijacked Christianity and took it over and made Jesus into something He was not.  This claim is false.
     Perhaps the primary area where Muslims think Paul and Jesus contradict is in the area of who Jesus is.  Paul states that Jesus is God in flesh:  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form."  Muslims assert that no where in the Gospels did Jesus claim to be God.  Therefore, they claim, Paul's words are not true and the Bible is not trustworthy.
     This attack by Muslims is an attack based out of opinion.  Jesus did claim to be God.   In John 8:56-59, it says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." ⁵⁷The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"  ⁵⁸Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." ⁵⁹Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."²  Why did the Pharisees want to kill Jesus?  They explain their reason in John 10:33 when they say, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," (KJV).  Whether or not the Muslim will accept this, let alone agree that this is correct, matters little because his presupposition will not allow him to accept, no matter what.  Nevertheless, the text clearly states that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming to be God.  Also, consider John 5:18 where the Apostle John says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," (KJV). In this verse Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees thought He was breaking the Sabbath law.  John the Apostle also states that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was "making himself equal with God."   The Muslim will always find a way to argue out of these texts.  But, two facts remain.  First, Jesus claimed to be God.  Second, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was God and the Muslims agree with them.
      There are other areas that the Muslims will say are where Jesus and Paul do not agree, but when they bring it up, always ask for an example.  Each time I've done this, I've discovered that the Muslim did not have a sufficient understanding of what the text is saying.  Remember, always read the context.

        No. 3      Misrepresentation of Christian doctrine

     Sadly, this is a very common error of the Muslims.  The single greatest instance of this is in the doctrine of the Trinity.  Muslims so often attack a false understanding of the Trinity by stating that it is three gods.  That is not the correct Christian definition of the Trinity doctrine.  Christianity does not teach there are three gods.  It never has and it never will.  The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Trinitarianism is monotheistic.  If a Muslim continues to proclaim that the Trinity is three gods, then I simply stop discussing the issue with him because he is not willing to accept what the definition is and it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue.
     Another Christian doctrine they fail to understand is the Hypostatic Union.  This is the teaching that Jesus is one person with two natures.  He is both God and man as is declared in Col. 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily."  Because Jesus was also a man, we have verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I."  Muslims will say that if Jesus is God, how could He be greater than Himself?  Of course, they fail to understand the Trinity (three persons) and they fail to understand that Jesus, as a man (Phil. 2:5-8), cooperated with the limitations of being a man and was in a lower position than the Father (Heb. 2:9) for a while.
     Sometimes Muslims refuse to accept Christian explanations for things because it doesn't fit their agenda nor their preconceived ideas of what they think Christianity is.  Oddly enough, Christians often contribute to this problem by offering inadequate and sometimes erring explanations of Christian doctrine.  Thus, many Muslims are led into error regarding what Christianity really teaches.  Christians need to know their doctrine, and Muslims need to understand the proper explanations for those doctrines.

        No. 4      Misinterpreting various Scripture passages

     A very good example of misrepresentation of biblical passages can be found in a dialogue I had with a Muslim regarding John 1:1, 14.  These verses say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God."  Verse 14 says "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."  The Muslim I was speaking to reasoned thus:  

If the word is God then we can insert the word "god" into the verse each time it says "word."  Therefore, we would have it say 'In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and God was God.'  As you can see, this makes no sense.  Therefore, when you go to verse 14 where it says the word became flesh, it cannot mean that God became flesh, because John 1:1 makes no sense."

     As you can see, this kind of logic is very bad.  First of all, John 1:1 does not say what he said it does.  It does not speak in contradictory terms the way he tried to make it sound.  Instead, it uses both the word "word" and the word "god" in the sentence.  I told him that he needed to go with what the text does say and not with what it does not say.  In other words, he reconstructed it in such a way as to purposely not make sense and then he attacked that.
     Another verse, or verses, that they misinterpret is when Jesus says that He is the Son of God.  To the Muslim, this means that God literally had a wife and produced a literal son.  Of course, this is not what is meant by the biblical account.  Sonship is in relation to the Fatherhood of God in a spiritual and metaphoric sense.  After all, Jesus says that God is spirit (John 4;24).  Of course, God would not have a body of flesh and bones with which to procreate children.  What the Muslims are guilty of doing is imposing Islamic understandings upon biblical texts and then complaining about the biblical texts in light of how they interpret them.  This is not how one should go about "refuting the opposition."  Rather, the Muslim should seek to understand the biblical/cultural context and deal with the issue from that perspective not a fabricated one as this example shows.
     

        No. 5      Failing to differentiate between Protestant and Catholic doctrines

     Sadly, Christianity is not in complete unity in all things which is why we have denominations.  I am dismayed at the fragmentation within Christianity and think it is a poor witness to the world.  But, the fact is that differences of opinions among Christians do occur.  In fact, we are allowed to have differences of opinion according to God's word found in Rom. 14: 1-13.  True Christians are all united in the essentials of the faith and are often divided on the non-essentials.  This does not mean we are not all Christians, but that we have differences of opinions on some things.  
     However, in the 1500s, there was a major split in the Catholic church.  It was called the Reformation.  As a Protestant, I believe the Reformation was necessary because the Catholic church had adopted some dangerous and erroneous doctrines that extend far beyond mere differences of opinion; namely, prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.  
     Muslims often fail to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism in their arguments.  I've heard and read where Muslims attack, for example, the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist where the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are claimed by the Catholics to actually become the body and blood of Christ during the communion service.  Of course, we Protestants strongly disagree with this.  But this disagreement is rarely, if ever, brought up when attacking Christian doctrine.  So, when Muslims say "Christians believe ...", be careful that they do not make too broad a generalization as they continue their attack.  

        No. 6      Claim their logic is correct and Christian logic is incorrect

     Many Muslims have told me that what I am saying about God, Salvation, the Bible, etc., isn't logical.  Now, perhaps some things I say are not logical.  But, I've not heard any convincing arguments yet demonstrating what is and is not logical regarding Christian doctrine.  Usually, the Muslim will simply say that Jesus having two natures is not logical or that the Trinity being three persons doesn't make sense.   But saying so doesn't make it so.  There is nothing illogical about a part of God being able to become a person and add human nature to Himself.  It may not be the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it is not illogical.  Neither does saying that the Trinity is three persons is illogical make it so.  Surely anyone would agree that when we encounter God and His self revelation there will be things that are difficult to understand.  The Trinity certainly falls under that category.  But, the Trinity doctrine is not against logic.  It would be illogical to say that one God is three gods, or that one person is three persons.  But that is not what Christianity teaches. 
     I've found that when dialoguing with Muslims and when reading their material against Christianity, that their claim to know real logic is really an extension of their Muslim thought and not a mastery of logic at all.

        No. 7      Switching topics when challenged

     When dialoguing with Muslims, please remember to be respectful and patient.  But, check everything they say and listen to them.  They do not have the market cornered on truth, even though they think they do.

_____________________

1.  There is an exception due to a textual copyist error.  In 2 Chr. 36:9, it states that "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king," and 2 Kings 24:8, states that "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king..."  This is not an error in the original manuscripts.   Most likely, one of the small horizontal strokes used in recording numbers during the time of Chronicles writing was either smudged out or faded.  (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI., 1982, page 215.)

2.  Note:  in Exodus 3:14 God says, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," (KJV).

A logical proof that Mormonism is false

     Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (this is called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife.  He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world.  That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum.  In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
     Truth does not contradict itself.  If I gave two statements about a subject and the two statements contradicted each other, then you would know something was wrong.  The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time.  In other words, truth does not contradict itself.  This is basic logic.  That which is true is internally consistent and contains no logical impossibilities.  If something does contain a logical impossibility, then it cannot be true.
     Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of causes.  This means that it teaches that each god was made a god by a previous god.  This means that as far back as you look in time, this process has always been occurring.  This means that from an infinity of time in the past, the Mormon plan of exaltation (become gods) has been in effect.  The only problem is that this is logically impossible.  Since it is logically impossible, this means that Mormonism is false.  Let's look closer.
     There cannot be an infinite regression of causes.  It is logically impossible.  Why?  Because you can not cross an infinity. 
     In other words, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past.  But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of exaltations and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity -- if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn't infinite.  Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false.  Simple.
     However, Mormons will not give in to a logical proof since their testimonies are not based on facts, but on what they claim is a testimony of the Holy Spirit.  Of course, all cult groups have testimonies that their church is true (proving that testimonies are contradictory and untrustworthy as a means to determining truth).  Nevertheless, they are taught to "feel" theological truth, not think it through.
     How then do they respond to this logical proof that Mormonism is false?  Normally they say that it is a mystery. Mysteries are fine, but they cannot suffice as an explanation if they contradict logic. In other words, if a principle is blatantly illogically, it cannot be true. Did you get that? It cannot be true. Saying it is a mystery means nothing if the proclamation of that mystery violates the laws of logic.  Mormonism is proven false.

What is the truth?

     Okay, so if the Mormon principle of eternal regression of exaltations is logically impossible, then what is the truth?
     The truth is that there is a single uncaused cause.  Logic necessitates that there must be a single being who is without beginning and upon which time has no meaning or affect who is the single uncaused cause.  The Bible says that God is unchanging (unlike the Mormon god) and that he has been God from eternity.  This is exactly what logic necessitates as being true.  The God of Christianity is not an exalted man from another planet with a goddess wife.  The God of Christianity has always been God and has never been anything else. 
     Check out the following verses.

• "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed," (Mal. 3:6).

• "Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God," (Psalm 90:2).

     What is sad is that this simple logical proof, and it is a proof that Mormonism is false, will mean basically nothing to those whose spiritual eyes have been blinded by the god of this world.

• "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, ⁴ in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God," (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

Basic Christian Doctrine

1.   There is only one God - Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9
2.   God is a Trinity - 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2
3.   There are no Gods before or after God - Isaiah 43:10
4.   God knows all things - 1 John 3:20
5.   God is all powerful - Psalm 115:3
6.   God is everywhere - Jer. 23:23,24
7.   God is sovereign - Zech. 9:14; 1 Tim. 6:15-16
8.   God is spirit - John 4:24
9.   God created all that exists - Gen. 1:1; Isaiah 44:24
10.   Spirit does not have a body of flesh and bones - Luke 24:39
11.   God has always been God - Psalm 90:2
12.   Jesus is God - John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8
13.   Jesus became a man - Phil. 2:5-8
14.   Jesus has two natures: divine and human - Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5
15.   Jesus was sinless - 1 Pet. 2:22
16.   Jesus is the only way to God the Father - John 14:6; Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22
17.   The Holy Spirit is God - Acts 5:3-4
18.   The Holy Spirit is not a force. He is alive - Acts 13:2
19.   The Bible is inspired by God - 2 Tim. 3:16
20.   All people have sinned - Rom. 3:23, 5:12
21.   Man did not evolve, he was created - Gen. 1:26
22.   Adam and Eve were real people - Gen. 3:20; 5:1; 1 Tim. 2:13
23.   Death entered the world because of Adam's sin - Rom. 5:12-15
24.   Sin separates us from God - Isaiah 59:2
25.   Jesus died for all our sins - 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Pet. 2:24
26.   Jesus' sacrifice was a substitution, for us - 1 Pet. 2:24
27.   Jesus rose from the dead in His physical body - John 2:19-21
28.   Those who reject Jesus will go to Hell - Rev. 20:11-15
29.   Hell is a place of fiery punishment - Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:20
30.   Hell is eternal - Matt. 25:46
31.   The unsaved go to hell forever - Rev. 21:8
32.   Salvation is a free gift of God - Rom. 4:5; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9
33.   The Bible is the Word of God - 2 Tim. 3:16
34.   Jesus will return visibly to earth - Acts 1:11
35.   Christians will be raised from the dead when Jesus returns - 1 Thess. 4:14-17
36.   There will be a rapture (being caught up into the clouds with Jesus) -
       1 Thess. 4:14-17
37.   There will be a final judgment - 2 Pet. 3:7
38.   The damned will be thrown into a lake of fire - Rev. 20:15
39.   Satan will be cast into the lake of fire - Rev. 20:10
40.   There will be a new heavens and a new earth - 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1

The gospel is the singularly most important communication of God to man. In Jesus, who is God the Son, we have the revelation of God’s love and sacrifice that saves us from God's righteous judgment upon sinners.
     If you are not a Christian and want to know how to be forgiven of your sins and follow Christ, or are just curious to know what the Christian gospel is, then this is for you.
     The Bible tells us what the gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4,

Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..."

     The Bible says that we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23). This means that we have all offended God. We have all broken His law.  Therefore, we are guilty of having sinned.  Because of this, we are separated from God (Isaiah 59:2), are dead in our sins (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:3), cannot please God (Rom. 3:10-11), and will suffer damnation (2 Thess. 1:9).  The only way to escape this judgment is by receiving Christ, by trusting in what Jesus did on the cross (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Pet. 2:24).
     Since we are sinners, we are incapable of removing the guilt of our sinfulness through our own efforts. Gal. 2:21 says, "...if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." The Law is the do’s and don’t’s of moral behavior. In other words, we can’t become righteous by what we do. Why? Because we are dead in our sins (Eph. 2:3).
     This means that since we cannot remove our own sins, God must do it.
     Jesus, who is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58; Col. 2:9), bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). He died in our place. He paid the penalty of breaking the Law of God which should that should have fallen upon us. He satisfied the law of God the Father by dying on the cross.
     It is only through Jesus that we can escape the penalty that God will execute upon all who have broken his holy and perfect law.  Do you want to be saved from the righteous judgment of God?  If so, if you want to become a Christian and follow God, then you must realize that you have sinned against God, and are under his judgment.  You must look to Jesus who died on the cross and trust what he did in order to be forgiven of your sentence and be saved from the judgment of God.  This is accomplished by faith alone in what Jesus has done.  You cannot add your sincerity nor can you add any human works to add to what Jesus is done.

First, count the cost

     Jesus said, "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it?" (Luke 14:28). Jesus tells us to count the cost.  The cost of becoming a Christian can be quite high sometimes.  In some parts of the world it can cost you your life.  Here in America, it is not nearly as dangerous.  Nevertheless, if you become a Christian God will take it very seriously.  he will work in your heart and in your life to change you and make you more like him.  Sometimes this is an easy journey and other times it can be difficult.  But, this is what it means to become a Christian to have God work in your life and to continue to work in your life after you have been saved.

Receive Christ

     If you desire to receive Christ we offer the following prayer is an example.  It is not a formula, but it is a representation of what it means to trust in Christ.

"Lord Jesus. I come to you and confess that I am a sinner, that I have lied, thought evil in my heart, and broken your word. Please forgive me of my sins. I trust in what you have done on the cross and I receive you.  Please cleanse me of my sin and be the Lord of my life. I trust you completely for the forgiveness of my sins and put no trust in my own efforts of righteousness. Lord Jesus, please save me."

    Tell others about your commitment to Jesus.  The Bible says, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; ¹⁰for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10).

In Jesus,

________________________

List all the scriptures referenced above.

• Isaiah 59:2, "Your sins have caused a separation between you and your God...." 
• John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
• John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
• John 8:58, "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
• John 14:6, "Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
• Acts 4:12, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
• Romans 3:10-11, "as it is written,’ There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God...’"
• Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
• Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
• Romans 10:9-10, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
• Ephesians 2:3, "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."
• Colossians 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,"
• 2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
• 1 Pet. 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."

MEN WITH MEN AND WOMEN WITH WOMEN

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even [1] their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also [2] the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).

There is a lot more contained in this verse than perceived in the eye of English.

First of all, all that is to follow in this dissertation by Paul comes under the general category of "vile affections." The word vile in this verse is Strong's #819 atimia, which means, "infamy, indignity, disgrace, dishonor, reproach, shame, vile." And so the things of which Paul is going to speak, are things that are: infamous, indignant, disgraceful, dishonorable, reproachable, shameful, and vile. Not a pretty picture; not a dissertation on godly virtue and morality.

First Paul mentions:

Some foolishly bury their heads in the sand and suggest that nothing immoral is actually mentioned here. Does it sound to you that leaving the natural use of something and using it in a way that is against nature burning in their lust, is a good thing? No, I think not. Okay, but can we determine exactly what it is that was being misused and against nature? Yes, we certainly can.

We just saw that it has to do with affections that women have that are against nature. That is, against the nature of the proper use of something ('did change the natural USE'). But what? Just what is that certain something that women change from the natural use of into something that is vile, disgraceful, and shameful? What is it that they are using disgracefully because of unnatural vile affections? I'll now show you maybe more precisely than you really want to know, what it was that "...their women did change the natural use [of] into that which is against nature..."

Do we think Paul is referring to the improper use of their ears? Did they change the natural use of their eyes? Maybe it was their hands? Did these men and women in question here start using their feet in an unnatural way?

Whatever it was that the women were doing against nature, the men were likewise also doing the very same thing:

"And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men..." (Verse 27).

What does Paul mean by "likewise also?" Simple, the Greek for "likewise" is homoios, and it means "similar," "likewise." The Greek for "also" is kai and it means "and, also, even, too, both indeed, likewise."

 Interestingly, we have another verse of Scripture which also uses these same two Greek words and translates them the same:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also [Gk: kai] to them likewise [Gk: homoios]" (Luke 6:31).

We are to treat others in a similar way, as we would want others to treat us. That is how these two words are used in Luke 6:31, and that is how they are used in Rom. 1:27. What the women were doing against nature, the men "likewise also" were doing "against nature." Now then, what was it that they were doing?

The men who were doing likewise also as the women "burned in their lust one [man] toward another [man], MEN WITH MEN..." Okay, lest someone suggest that this is merely human companionship and doesn't involve SEX, let's continue and see just what parts of the human anatomy is being referenced here.

It is so easy when reading Scripture to not pay close attention to all the words. These five words "working that which is unseemly" are translated from only one Greek word, aschemosune, and this word is used only one other time in Scripture, which I will now show you so as to remove all doubt as to its meaning:

"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they SEE his shame [aschemosune]" (Rev. 16:15).

Here Jesus is using figurative language. In the same way someone is shamed by taking off all their clothing in public (so will those who do not spiritually watch for Jesus be spiritually shamed).

So what is it that people see when someone is naked? Why, for example, are there many topless beaches around the world where total nudity is not allowed? What shame [aschemosune] is made visible in Rev. 15:16 by walking naked? And what is it that is "working that which is unseemly [aschemosune]" in Rom. 1:27? Some of you are already way ahead of me.

The King James translators have often chosen words of modesty, so as to not offend the sensitive reader.

Strong's Greek Dictionary: "unseemly/shame" #808, aschemosune, "an indecency; by implication the pudenda: shame, which is unseemly."

And just what is the "pudenda?"

The American Heritage College Dictionary: pudendum/ pl. pudenda n. "The human external genital organs, especially of a woman" (p. 1127). There it is.

It was the genital organs of the female that:

"...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature [women with women]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman [and her genital organs], burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working [with each other's genital organs] that which is unseemly" (Rom. 1:26-27).

I will not get anymore graphic than that.

Romans 1:26-27 is a very strong condemnation of the list of vile affections starting with sex between women with women, and men with men. And professing faith in the love and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not turn this perversion into a virtue.

When Isaiah tells us to:

"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins" (Isa. 58:1).

Should I just keep my mouth shut on this subject?

Few Christians believe that those who practice adultery, stealing, and lying will enter God's Kingdom without repenting. But this is not the case with practicing homosexuals.

Speaking against homosexuality may soon become a hate crime law in which offenders will be prosecuted as criminals. Let's take a closer Scriptural look at this subject while the law still allows it.

Let's look at these verses on homosexuality by the Apostle Paul, in the context of this section of Scripture:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold [back] the truth in unrighteousness... Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which is meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26-32).

This is the largest single list of ungodliness, unrighteousness, sins, crimes, and corruption found anywhere in the entirety of the Scriptures, and notice that heading the list are:

"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"

"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"

"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"

Paul concludes this list of carnal sins by stating: "they which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH" (as is every other sin mentioned). Now the very fact that the perpetrators of such sexual perversions deny they are sins, and large segments of society and government condone these sins, shows how morally decayed our nation is becoming.

In Politics and Government: Most Democratic presidential candidates recently spoke at a gay forum in which they unanimously gave approval to the homosexuals in America. There was a split over whether gays can legally marry partners of the same sex, but as for gay relationships and gay rights they received overwhelming support from these wanna-be presidents of the USA. Likewise it is reported that up to three-quarters of Americans support gay rights and civil unions, but half do not support gay marriage.

In Entertainment: TV dramas, situation comedies, and major films are now glamorizing the gay life. A recent film about two gay cowboys, entitled BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, received rave reviews, such as the following:

In The Church: Chicago-"Flouting what they call a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, more than 80 gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered Lutheran ministers declared their sexuality on Tuesday in hopes of changing a church rule that excludes gay and lesbian clergy who do not live chastely." Is such protesting effective:

Lutherans Vote To Allow Gay Clergy

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Saturday voted to refrain from disciplining clergy in committed same-sex relationships. (The Post Chronicle)

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - The largest U.S. Presbyterian Church body approved a measure on Tuesday that would open the way for the ordination of gays and lesbians under certain circumstances. (Reuters)

After Paul states "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections," he gives us the following list of sins:

"...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly... unrighteous, fornication, wicked, covetous, malicious, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful..." (Rom. 1:27-31).

What justification, pray tell, is there in lifting out the first two sins: "...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...," as being perfectly virtuous (if done out of what gays would call true love) while the rest of the sins remain sins?

By whose authority are the government, the media, and the Church rendering these sins as defendable and virtuous?

It is now both politically incorrect and socially incorrect to speak of these perversions as sin, and now (according to polls) the majority of Americans also either feels pressured, or just cannot see any immorality in homosexuality.

When immorality is condoned and even lauded, it spills over into every aspect of society. Even child rapists are getting off with little more than a slap on the hand and a few months probation. Such behavior in our judicial system forty or fifty years ago would have been outrageous, but few are showing much alarm over such judicial travesties today.

I am not condemning the sinners, but I am condemning the sin and the lax attitudes toward this sin. As Paul clearly states:

How is it that Paul can state: "such were" some of you?

"For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the Glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

God will pardon all of our sins, but they must be put in our past.

If I condoned my own past sins, I never would have repented of them.

"Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world... Among whom also we all had our conduct in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh..." (Eph. 2:2-3).

Continuing:

"For ALL have sinned... Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are PAST, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26).

Now back up to the beginning of Romans 6:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:1-2).

There is salvation available, and it is by grace, not our own personal works of righteousness, but we must first repent. This repentance is also by grace. It is a gift from God just like salvation itself. Once again, we are ALL in the same boat for we have ALL sinned.

Notice next what Paul says after his declaration against a list of 27 major sins. Paul's statement that "...they which commit such things are worthy of DEATH," does not end his declarations on this subject. We must continue into chapter 2:

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judges: for wherein you judge another, thou condemn yourself; for thou that judge do the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

And think you this, O man, that judge them which do such things, and do the same, that thou shall escape the judgment of God? Or despise you the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leads thee to REPENTANCE?" (Rom. 2:1-4).

While "Christ died for our sins" (I Cor. 15:3), all sins that Jesus died for must be repented of or that person will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but will rather be raised up in Judgment. Christ dying for the sins of the world is not the final step with the issue of sin and sinners. The final step is to GET THE SIN OUT OF THE SINNER, and that is precisely what will happen, Christ "will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31) and the ungodly "will learn righteousness" (Isa. 26:9). Then and only then will "God be ALL in All" (I Cor. 15:28).

Here is one of the most sobering Scriptures in the entire New Testament:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46).

Jesus Christ personally commissioned Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. What Paul wrote to the churches was under divine inspiration of Jesus Christ. All of these profound life and death declarations of Paul are just as valid as if Jesus Himself declared them.

It has been foolishly stated that virtually anything is permissible including deviant sex, "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone."

But what some can't seem to realize is that it hurts them. Having sex with animals doesn't hurt anyone else, but it sure hurts the one doing it. It is both a perversion of the body and a perversion of the mind.

DOESN'T NATURE TEACH US THE PROPER USE OF SEX?

Numerous species of animals have been seen performing sex on the same gender. Therefore, if this is a part of God's own nature of things among some animals, then surely it is permissible among humans? Oh really? And since when are we to look to the beasts of the field for the proper interpretation of human morality?

Since animals kill and eat each other, does this set a moral standard for people to do the same?

Since numerous species kill and eat their own young, does this justify people killing and eating their own babies?

I WAS BORN THIS WAY
[In search of the elusive homosexual gene]

Numerous homosexuals have written me stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born this way."

Much of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?

There are hundreds and hundreds of web sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations from the NARTH web site:

From the American Psychological Association:

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay:

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

[Above quotations from NARTH web site (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold emphasis are theirs, not mine]

Here are a few quotations from THE NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality. [bold is emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org, Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]

The Catholic Medical Association web site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.

Although there are some agencies that still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would lighten their burden in this matter enormously.

Interestingly I could find no web-page which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were "born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be "born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual.

GOD IS THE LAW-GIVER AND DETERMINES WHAT IS SIN

When David acknowledged his sins of adultery and murder by having Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed so he could then take Uriah's beautiful wife Bathsheba in adultery, he didn't repent toward Bathsheba, or Uriah, or even the nation of Israel, but rather said:

"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" (Psalm 51:4).

Although David was not a spiritually converted man (he died with murder in his heart, I Kings 2:1-9), he nonetheless, had the sense to know that it is God and not man who determines what is sin and what is righteousness. Any king of any nation has the right to send any soldier to the front line where he may well be killed, and then steal the man's wife back home. But that doesn't make it right in God's eyes.

James informs us that:

"There is one Lawgiver Who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12).

God also inspired Isaiah to write:

"WOE unto them that call evil good and good evil... Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! ...Which justify the wicked [Heb: rasha, 'morally wrong] for reward..." (Isa. 5:20-21 & 23).

Did the Apostle Paul have totally different criteria than that of Isaiah? Was Paul's condemnation of "women with women and men with men" an example of "rasha" (morally wrong), but somehow this same sin to Isaiah would be "good" and not "evil?" Nonsense.

The seventh commandment states: "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). It is generally thought that adultery means one partner of a marriage having sex with a third person. This is a narrow view of the commandment, however. Jesus plainly taught us the spiritual meaning of this commandment:

"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman [Gk: gune, 'a woman; a wife'] to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

The word gune can mean a wife, but it is also used many times to represent unmarried women.

So notice the profound implications of Jesus declaration: He quotes the Old Testament commandment against adultery and states that it applies to lusting after a women (not just physically intercourse). And not just someone's wife, but any woman.

Now under Moses, the law against adultery applied equally to women who committed adultery against their husbands. And so, likewise, if a woman just "looks upon a man to lust after him," she has committed adultery with him in her heart.

But does this include women lusting after women, and men lusting after men?"

Of course. Do we think that a man is not allowed to "lust" after a women (which can be legally married together), but it is perfectly okay for a man to "lust" after another man (which can not be legally married together)? And if you think the 7th commandment does not cover this sin, then I assure you that the 10th one does.

THE 7th and 10th COMMANDMENTS BOOKEND HOMOSEXUALITY

If you think that homosexuals don't "LUST" for sex with the same gender, then I believe there is still some cheap swampland available in Florida.

THE 7th COMMANDMENT: Jesus said:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust [Gk: epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after'] after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).

Likewise, one breaks the 7th commandment if a woman lusts after a man, or a woman lusts after a woman, or a women lusts after a little boy, or a man lusts after a man, or a man lusts after a little boy, or a little girl. If the "lust" itself BREAKS the commandment, what in the world do we think the actual "act" BREAKS?

THE 10th COMMANDMENT: Paul said:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust [Gk: epithumia, 'a longing (for what is forbidden), concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, lust'] except the law had said, You shall not covet [Gk: epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after']" (Rom. 7:7).

Okay then, if we can all walk and chew gum at the same time, we should not have a problem in putting these two Greek words together. Jesus said that "epithumeo-covet, desire, lust after" breaks the 7th commandment against adultery. And Paul said that the reason that "epithumia-a longing for what is forbidden, concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, and lust" is wrong is because the 10th commandment states "You shall not covet"-"epithumeo, covet, desire, lust after." But wait, there's more.

The 10th commandment goes on to say:

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's" (Ex.20:17).

Now then, let me spell it out for you: Believers in Christ Jesus are NOT to covet [epithumeo-"covet, desire, lust after"] his neighbor's:

WIFE-neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's wife.

MANSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet their neighbor's manservant, whether they be 9 years old or 29 years old.

MAIDSERVANT-neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's maidservant, whether they are 9 years old or 29 years old.

OX -neither men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's ox or donkey  whether for production of meat or to have sex with them.

The teaching of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the 7th commandment, the 10th commandment, the teachings of the Apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ, all condemn homosexuality as SIN. This subject is completely book-ended-there is no wiggle room left for justifying the practice of homosexuality in any form.

Does the Bible speak of "illegal sex" and "legal sex?" Yes, it does:

How are we to be sexually gratified? Here's the Scriptural teaching.

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain [remain sexually pure and virtuous], let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [Gk: puroo-'inflamed with lust']" (I Cor. 7:7-9).

So what would the homosexual say to this? Well at least some of them would totally agree. Why do you think that they are trying to get same-sex marriage legalized? Yes, they would agree with Paul-let's get MARRIED.

Back up a few verses for God's answer as to who should be married to whom:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [Gk: porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (I Cor. 7:2).

Paul gives only one answer to the problem of fornication, and it is for each man to have his wife and each woman to have her own husband. Does anyone see Paul suggesting an "alternative life style" in which fornication can be avoided? Does Paul suggest that porneia can be avoided by every man having his own husband, and every woman her own wife?

Paul knew about "women with women and men with men" when he wrote his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1:26-27). Such unions against nature are clearly not acceptable solutions to burning with inflamed sexual emotions, and a way to "avoid fornication/porneia." Peter warns against being willingly ignorant, and Paul sternly warns against "Believers" who "willfully sin?"

"For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10:26-27).

Paul could not have been more clear. To avoid the sin of porneia, we are to [1] MARRY, [2] MEN marry a WIFE, and [3] WOMEN marry a HUSBAND. Men marrying men and women marrying women are not legal options. Men and women who have vile affections, and BURN in their lust, women with women and men with men... are worthy of DEATH (Rom. 1:26-27 & 32).

How many homosexuals would dare insinuate that their passion for one another of the same gender is not "coveting/lust?" Are Believers to think that they can continue living in such sin and somehow be covered by the "the grace of God?"

Long after Christ's resurrection and the introduction of faith, grace, and justification, Paul is still teaching that such burning affections for the same sex are VILE, and worthy of DEATH. And if you can't contain, then get married-MEN TO WIVES AND WOMEN TO HUSBANDS.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that Paul would tell us: "To avoid sexual perversion,  you should enter into a union of sexual perversion?"

The ONLY way to avoid the sins of porneia if one cannot contain one's inflamed desires, is to marry a mate of the opposite sex. When our Creator God Almighty inaugurated holy matrimony, He joined together Adam and Eve, not Kevin & Steve or Alice & Marie!

I know that some homosexuals are arrogant and try to justify their sin. Others hate their sin and wish to stop but can't. We all make choices, and a choice is what we prefer. One may hate the fact that he is a smoker, yet, he "prefers" the feeling he gets from smoking over the feeling he doesn't get when he runs out of cigarettes or tries to quit. To quit you must have a stronger reason for not doing something than you have for doing something. It's all about motivation.

Sometimes just knowing that something is a sin is reason to quit. That is why I quit smoking. I knew it was not good for my health, it was dirty, it was annoying to others, and it was costly, etc. But I did not quit until I became convinced that is was sinning against God.

I enjoyed smoking a LOT when I quit. But sometimes it takes a doctor telling you that you will die if you don't quit a particular life style. But the bottom line is, you won't stop committing the sin unless and until God Almighty has determined that you will quit. And that is equally true for atheists, although they don't know or won't acknowledge that as yet.

Heterosexual men are just as weak when it comes to lusting after women, as homosexuals are when it comes to lusting after members of the same gender. The ONLY way that I know of to break these sins and have victory over them is for God to empower you with a greater motivation to live righteously than to live un-righteously. If what you desire to be is "good," then there is only One Source:

"And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labor, It is the gift of God" (Ecc. 3:13).

"EVERY good gift and EVERY perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

We will continue to pray for all those who desire to come out of the bondage and slavery of "...the sin which does so easily beset us...." (Heb. 12:1).

Mormonism and the Negro

      According to Mormon history and authoritative Mormon teachers, the Negro, as they were referred to, are a cursed race because they were not faithful to God in their first estate (the pre-existent life with God). Hence, when they are born they are born in black skinned families.
      The early Mormon church was highly prejudicial against black people. And though there has been a change in attitude to blacks as of June 9, 1978 when they were finally allowed into the Mormon priesthood, it cannot be denied that Mormonism was, up until very recently, a segregated church.
      Please consider the following small sample of official Mormon writings as proof of their prejudice, their inconsistency, their doctrinal waffling, their yielding to political pressure, and their failure to truly represent Christ on earth.

• "At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, and considered he had rather the best claim to the government. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honorable body on this earth." A speech by Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum,, in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845, printed in Liverpool, page 30.
• "The very fact that God would allow those spirits who were less worthy in the spirit world to partake of a mortal body at all is further evidence of his mercy." Mormonism and the Negro, part I, pages 48-50.
• "It is the Mormon belief that in our pre-mortal state there were a large number of individuals who, due to some act or behavior of their own in the pre-existence, forfeited the right to hold the Priesthood during their mortal lives...the Negro is thus denied the Priesthood because of his own behavior in the pre-existence." The Church and the Negro, pages 42-43.
• "As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed and told that "the earth" would not thereafter yield him its abundance as previously. In addition he became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition...The Lord placed on Cain a mark of a dark skin, and he became the ancestor of the black race. (Moses 5; Gen. 4; Teachings, p. 169)." Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, page 109.
• "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110.
        The reader should be reminded that Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church said that whatever he preached was as good as scripture -- J. D. Vol. 13, page 95, 264.
• "...the church went to court on several occasions to block Negroes from moving into the San Francisco neighborhood in which the headquarters was located." The Christian Century, Sept. 29, 1965, page 1184.
• On Oct. 28, 1865, the Mormon Church paper Millennial Star printed an article which stated that "Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles I acknowledged to be false..."
• The Mormon write John J. Stewart stated: "If we as members of the Church are going to pick and choose among the Prophet's teachings, and say ‘this one is of God, we can accept it, but this one is of man, we will reject that,' then we are undermining the whole structure of our faith..." Mormonism and the Negro, page 19.
• "The prophets have declared that there are at least two major stipulations that have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood. The first requirement relates to time. The Negroes will not be allowed to hold the Priesthood during mortality, in fact, not until after the resurrection of all of Adam's children. The other stipulation requires that Abel's seed receive the first opportunity of having the priesthood....the last of Adam's children will not be resurrected until the end of the millennium. Therefore, the Negroes will not receive the Priesthood until after that time... this will not happen until after the thousand years of Christ's reign on earth." The Church and the Negro, 1967, pages 45-48.
• Albert B. Fritz, NAACP branch president, said at a civil rights meeting Friday night that his organization promised not to picket the 133rd Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church on Temple Square. He added, however, that the NAACP will picket Temple Square, next Saturday if the Church does not present an ‘acceptable' statement on civil rights before that day." Deseret News, Oct. 5, 1963.
• "Some 3,000 students, led by the BSU, paraded peacefully on the school's campus in Seattle Monday over the issue of alleged racism at BYU." Deseret News, March 10, 1970.
• "The demonstration was the latest in a series of protests against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) because the church bars Negroes from its priesthood." Deseret News, Jan. 10, 1970.

• In June of 1978 the Mormon church officiated a ‘revelation' stating that blacks could then hold the priesthood.

      The Bible says that God is not a respecter of persons, but the Mormon church is: First in its prejudice of the blacks for being black, and second in its succumbing to political and social pressure to change its doctrinal views. Is such a church really from God?

      I am greatly indebted to the book Mormonism Shadow or Reality by Jerald and Sandra Tanner for the sources cited above.

If you are Mormon please understand that this web page is not against you personally. I know that you have "testimony" of the Spirit concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon and you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. You are probably a very good person (or are trying to be) and want to serve God and honor Him. This is good and it is admirable. You probably have great faith in what you believe. But, your faith is only as good as who it is placed in.
      Jesus said that the truth will set you free (John 8:32). If what is stated about Mormonism on this web site is true, then it should help a lot of people, including you. At the very least, you should examine the evidence presented here to see if it holds water. If you would like to discuss any issue raised on my site, then please feel free to contact me. But please, stick to the issues, give me documentation, and present your arguments. Too many Mormons simply hurl insults with little reasoning behind them.
      But, you say you have a testimony and you know that Mormonism is true. You've read the Book of Mormon and received a confirmation of its truth by the power of the Spirit. But even what is perceived as truth, needs to be examined by the Word of God (Acts 17:11).
      God has said to examine all things by the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). I suggest you compare what Mormonism teaches to the Bible. Maybe you don't think it is necessary because you 'know' the church is true. Maybe you've read the Book of Mormon and felt a burning in your bosom. Maybe you know for a fact you cannot be swayed because of your testimony to the truth of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith.
      If you have answered "Yes!" to the preceding statement, then I have a question for you. What have you done with Jesus? Is it He that you testify of most? Is it He that you love the most and serve (Matt. 4:19; Romans 16:18)? Or is He only a member of your church, an older brother, and someone who is there to help you testify to Mormonism? If that is what you believe, you are deceived.
      All things must be examined by God's Word. But Mormonism casts strong doubt upon the reliability of the Bible.  It says that the Bible has been corrupted and many plain and precious truths have been lost. The 8th Article of Faith states:  "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."  In History of the Church, Vol. 6:461, Joseph Smith said, "I told them that the book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth."   In fact, Joseph Smith even corrected the Bible in a version he called, "An Inspired Version of the Authorized Version."  The Authorized Version is commonly known as the King James Bible.  In Smith's "Inspired Version" are numerous attempts to correct the Bible we now have.
     It is this unfounded underlying suspicion of the Bible that permeates Mormon theology and has allowed many unbiblical Mormon doctrines to develop.
    I think that this is very similar to what the serpent said to Eve when he said, ". . . Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" (Gen. 3:1). Satan, in order to get Eve and also Adam to be deceived, first had to cast doubt on God's Word. Then notice what the Serpent said, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:4-5). After Eve doubted God's word, she was told by Satan she would be like God knowing good and evil.
      At this point, I would like to point out in James Talmage's book The Articles of Faith on page 62 it says,

"The opportunity of winning the victor's reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced. Adam said: 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.' Eve was glad and declared: 'Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

      It is interesting to note that in Mormon theology it was a blessing for Adam to have transgressed God's word so that his eyes could be opened.   Both Adam and Eve specifically pointed to their transgression as a blessing.   But the Mormon will say that it was the transgression that allowed the seed to come, the knowledge of good and evil, and the truth of redemption.  My point is simple, the fall, the sin of rebellion is celebrated in Mormonism.  I thought only the ungodly celebrate sin.
      I honestly hope that you will seek God in the Bible, compare Mormonism to it, not rely on your subjective feelings, and test Mormonism against the facts. Eternity is a long time to be wrong.

The Flesh and Demons
They work together

---

Many who criticize the deliverance ministry will claim that we tend to blame everything on demons to avoid personal responsibility. That is simply not true in most cases in this type of ministry. I do not intend on ignoring the flesh or overemphasizing the demonic, but I would like to clearly explain how the two work together to carry out Satan's plan in our lives.

The flesh is the gateway to the demonic. Many times (unless it is generational, etc.), it is through the flesh that demons gain entrance into a person's life. We are first tempted by demons (the enemy works through his army of fallen angels) because they are seeking to gain entrance into our lives or carry out a plan to kill, steal or destroy us (see John 10:10), then once we give in, they become welcomed into our lives, and once they enter, they will serve as bad friends who will constantly seek to negatively influence us. Having a spirit of lust will be like working in an adult bookstore... it will work to wear you down and get you to give in. Without having that spirit, it is much easier to resist the temptation. But wait a minute, what about plain old temptation that is thrown our way on regular bases? We are not immune from that, are we? No, unfortunately we will probably be tempted to a certain degree until we leave this earth. But let me illustrate the difference between normal temptation and having a demon which is pressuring you to sin: When you drive down the road and see an adult bookstore alongside the road, you can easily resist thinking about what is inside that store... that is temptation. Now let's say that you had to work in such a store, and have sex videos playing on the TV screens all day long... that is what it's like to have a spirit of lust. There is a VERY big difference! If you simply feel a little temptation once in a while and find it very easy to resist, then you are likely experiencing simple temptation from the enemy and your goal is to resist it and move on. However, if you feel driven to lust or pornography (or other sinful behavior such as anger, hate, rage, etc.), then you likely have a spirit that must be driven out.

As I said earlier, the flesh is the gateway to the demonic. Demons cannot simply walk up to us and enter... they must be welcomed, and our flesh is their tool to get the job done. If they can tempt us to sin, and our flesh opens the door, then they will have 'permission' to access our souls and/or bodies. This is why you cannot effectively minister to a person who is not ready to let go of their bondage. If somebody is not willing to give up lust, then even if you do get them delivered (by casting out all spirits of lust, addiction, etc.), that person will likely (without even knowing it) re-open that door all over again and the demons can come right back.

Sin is a work of the flesh

Is it possible for a demon to take complete control over a person, and cause them to murder, rape, etc.? Yes! But in most situations, that is not the case.

Unless the demon takes complete control over the person, it is the flesh that commits the sin. Take for example a person who has a spirit of lust and then commits adultery... it is their flesh that has sinned, but it was coaxed along (or pressured) by the spirit of lust (or similar spirits). Having a spirit of lust can pressure us to sin, but it cannot force us to sin. This is why the Bible still refers to various sinful acts as 'works of the flesh':

Galatians 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Demons are like bad friends

So what if you have a spirit of rage, and you are driven to violence? Wouldn't at least some of it be the demon's fault if you fell into that type of sin? Having a demon is like having a bad friend who has access to your mind and can sit there and inject thoughts or feelings in your system day after day. If you hang around bad friends all the time, what happens? You begin to become like them... they will wear off on you! That is what happens when a person has a demon; the demon's ways will wear on that person's flesh and break it down... making it hard to resist temptation and sin!

Can a demon take control over a person and use their body to commit gruesome acts of murder, etc.? While it can happen, it is rarely the case. Demons are great at working the flesh up to the point of sin and putting pressure on them that can be very hard to resist. This is usually how they do their dirty work in our lives.

Conclusion

The flesh is the open door to the enemy, and the demons are here to ruin our lives. The two work together to carry out Satan's plan to destroy us!

The flesh must be crucified (or consider ourselves dead to sin - see Romans 6:11), and demons must be cast out. If we try to crucify the demon or cast out the flesh... we are wasting our time! It is vital that we accomplish two things when seeking deliverance:

A) Make sure that our flesh is not joining hands with the demon or giving it any permission

B) Get rid of any unclean spirits that may be working against us

It is pointless to constantly discipline the flesh yet allow the demons to remain, and it is also useless to cast out the demons, but allow the flesh to re-open the doors to them again.