Tuesday, July 30, 2019

A response to Joyce Meyer on tattoos


In 2018 Joyce Meyer came out in support of Christians getting tattoos. You can read her statement and watch the video here. This is my response and my opinions in general on tattoos. I err on the side of Christians not getting tattoos. I believe that it's one thing for a Christian to get a tattoo before they were saved, they didn't know any better, but it's quite another for a Christian to get them after being saved.

To preface, I have nothing against Joyce Meyer. I have listened to her myself before, I just believe she is in error on this particular point. That doesn’t mean she is in error on all points or any less a Christian. She’s human and fallible just like the rest of us. No one is going to be right one-hundred percent of the time about everything. As Paul said, “we see through a glass darkly”, but I digress.

Joyce equates the Christian taboo against tattoos to legalism. Legalism being a strict literal adherence to the Mosiac laws. I personally don’t see it that way. However, while Christians have never adhered to the Laws of Mosses, they were useful for teaching right and wrong. More to the point, what was morally wrong in the Old Testament, is still morally wrong in the New Testament. And I’m specifically referring to the moral laws, which are still relevant today, and not to the civil and ceremonial laws which were specific to the Israelites under the Old Covenant.

So what does the Bible really have to say about tattoos? Admittedly not a lot, although I think some things can be inferred. Let us look at the scriptures that are given in favor or against tattoos and what they really mean.

Leviticus 19:28 ‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.

Those who are for tattoos will say the prohibition against tattoos was specifically in regards to worshiping the dead. However, it is presumed here that the tattooing is in connection with the preceding clause. The argument I have against this is if the Israelites believed that the prohibition against tattooing was only in regards for the dead, then why wasn’t it a common practice among them? On the contrary, they would have seen them as a disfigurement upon God’s handiwork.
Isaiah 44:5 (AMPC) One will say, I am the Lord's; and another one will write [even brand or tattoo] upon his hand, I am the Lords...?
This is one of the verses used to support tattoos, but if it supports tattoos then wouldn’t it also support branding? I notice that Joyce uses the AMPC version here which infers a brand or tattoo. However, most other Bible versions I’ve seen simply say “subscribe” or “write”. The Hebrew word used here is “kathab”. Looking at its use in the Old Testament it is defined as:

I. to write, record, enrol
        A. (Qal)
            I. to write, inscribe, engrave, write in, write on
            II. to write down, describe in writing
            III. to register, enrol, record
            IV. to decree
        B. (Niphal)
            i. to be written
            ii. to be written down, be recorded, be enrolled
        (Piel) to continue writing

The usage then would suggest literal writing as opposed to actual tattooing or branding. Barnes' Notes on the Bible supports this view:
…The mark, or writing, was not on the hand, but with it - literally, 'and this shall write his hand to Yahweh; 'and the figure is evidently taken from the mode of making a contract or bargain, where the name is subscribed to the instrument. It was a solemn compact or covenant, by which they enrolled themselves among the worshippers of God, and pledged themselves to his service. The manner of a contract among the Hebrews is described in Jeremiah 32:10, Jeremiah 32:12, Jeremiah 32:44. A public, solemn, and recorded covenant, to which the names of princes, Levites, and priests, were subscribed, and which was sealed, by which they bound themselves to the service of God, is mentioned in Nehemiah 9:38. Here it denotes the solemn manner in which they would profess to be worshippers of the true God; and it is expressive of the true nature of a profession of religion. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/44-5.htm

Isaiah 49:16 See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; Your walls are continually before Me.
This is another verse that is in use of supporting tattoos, however just because the word “inscribed” is used does not make it an endorsement of tattoos. The assumption here is that “inscribed”, or in some versions “engraving”, in this verse is equivalent to marking the skin with ink. If we look at the Hebrew word used here, “chaqaq”, compared with the Hebrew word "qa`aqa`" in Leviticus 19:28, they are two separate words and don't mean the same thing.

There’s another assumption here that the verse is literal, and not employing the use of poetic language to make a point. The point here is that the pagan's would get tattoos as a sign of devotion to their gods. This would be God's way of saying then that He was devoted to Israel, even if they had turned away from Him. Thus employing the use of poetic language.
Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
 Joyce Meyer did not use this verse, but I have seen it used before in defense of tattoos. Here again an assumption is made that it is a tattoo marked directly on Jesus’ bare thigh. Commentaries, however, say this was not likely on his skin as a tattoo, but written upon his garment:

"Inscriptions on the outer garments were sometimes used by distinguished personages. -Ellicot's commentary for English readers

“And on his garment and (i.e., even) upon his thigh”; on that part of the robe covering his thigh, he has a title of honour written." -Expositor's Greek Testament

"on his vesture and on his thigh] i.e, probably, beginning on the lower part of the cloak, and continued where the thigh projected from it as He rode—whether this continuation was on the bare flesh, or (as seems likelier) on the skirt of the tunic." -Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges


Conclusion:
As mentioned previously, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about tattoos. None of the scriptures above give an endorsement of tattoos, nor do they explicitly condemn them either (depending how one interprets Leviticus 19:28). I would, however, offer two primary reasons against tattoos:

The first is that tattoos come out of the pagan world. Pagans are notorious for disfiguring their bodies through tattoos, cutting, branding, piercing, etc. Marking the skin was not a common practice among the Israelites or Christians. Oh I’m sure you could find examples of some who did it, just as you can find examples of apostate Jews and Christians who practiced a deviation of their faith, but it wasn’t a common cultural practice.

The second is that it disfigures the body, which was made in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19 says, "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" If the body is a temple, then tattoos would be like putting graffiti on the side of a church or synagogue.

Tattoos are symbols of the world and carnality. If we accept tattoos when what will we accept next? Will body modifications and brandings also be acceptable because they are not expressly condemned in the Bible? Something is wrong when Christians start acting and looking just like the world. An inward conversion should be expressed by an outward change in our appearance and actions.
Romans 12:1 “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper worship.”

Sunday, June 23, 2019

A Christian response to the LGBT debate


What is the Christian perspective?
Why do Christians oppose homosexuality and believe it a sin? The answer to these questions requires an understanding of the Christian perspective on the matter. It should first be established what sin is. Sin can be defined as anything that is contrary to the will of God. With that in mind, Christians believe that the word of God, as expressed in the Bible, is the authoritative will of God.

In the beginning of the Book of Genesis God created Adam in His image, and later Eve. He then gives the very first command to mankind: “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Sex then was created for procreation. We were given the unique ability to create other beings in the image of God. So special and unique is this gift that not even the angels in heaven possess it.

Herein lies the will of God. The model and design of God is for one man and one woman to come together in holy matrimony, creating a new family of their own. This is repeated by Jesus in the New Testament: “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together. (Mar 10:7-9)”. As Ben Franklin eloquently put it “It is the Man and Woman united that make the complete human being.” This is God’s idea of sex, marriage, and family.

The traditional family (dubbed the nuclear family) was then created by God, and marriage was established as the best social construct for raising children. This is the reason why homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, is considered a sin, because it deviates from the design which God has established. In this regard, however, homosexuality is not alone. Any sexual activity that deviates from this design is also a sin. This would include heterosexual sins of adultery and promiscuity.

Are people born gay?
Some have suggested that people who are homosexual are “born that way”. For that to be possible it would require that it be hard coded into their DNA. However, no such gene has been found to exist. It would stand to reason that any physiological trait, genetic or otherwise, which causes humans not to reproduce would be bred out of existence a long time ago. Put another way, homosexuals would not be able to pass on the gene if it was genetic. Conversely, if it were a genetic trait it would be more prevalent. However, homosexuals have always been in the minority.

Moreover, how could genetics explain two identical twins where one is gay and the other is straight? If genes were responsible for our sexual identities then identical twins, who share the same DNA, should be either both gay or both straight. However, this is not normally the case. Jones & Yarhouse (2000), calculated that if one twin has same-sex attraction, there is only an 11% the other twin will have same-sex attraction. Other researches concur. After examining six studies from 2000-2011 they concluded that if one twin is gay the chances that the other twin is gay is only 11% for men, and 14% for women.

And then there are ex-gays who have left the gay lifestyle. Likewise, there have been straight people who have joined the gay lifestyle. If sexuality was hard-coded into our genes, it would have been impossible for them to change. The truth is we are much more than the sum of our genes. Recent studies have indicated that we are not slaves to our genes, and have much more control over them than previously thought:

"Every cell in your body has been neatly packaged with all the genes for you, but not all those genes are initiated (expressed) at the same time. So a cell initiates the liver gene when in your liver and not when in your skin. When a gene is expressed it makes a new protein that alters the structure and function of that particular cell. The information about how to make these proteins is "transcribed" or read from the individual gene. The myth we have learned is that our genes shape us, but research shows that our thinking also affects which genes are initiated. Therefore, we can shape our genes." -Dr. Caroline Leaf (Who Switched Off My Brain?)

“I actively supported the perspective that the human body was a "biochemical machine ‘programmed’ by its genes… Though the power of genes is still emphasized in current biology courses and textbooks, a radically new understanding has emerged at the leading edge of cell science. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception (interpretation) of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. Environment controls gene activity through a process known as epigenetic control.” - Bruce Lipton (Biology of Belief)

“While clearly a huge scientific and medical milestone, sequencing the human genome was followed by the growing realization that humans were much more than the product of their human genes.” –Justin Sonnenburg and Erica Sonnenburg, PhDs (The Good Gut)

In conclusion, if homosexuality was innate at birth we would expect to see about even heterosexual and homosexual populations, but we do not. Historically, the homosexual population as always been low, and the heterosexual population as always been high (as evidenced by a world population of seven billion people). Heterosexuality is and has always been the default norm for humanity.

Why are some people gay?
The deciding factor if a person becomes a homosexual or not is likely due to environmental and behavioral factors. Meaning that it is psychological rather than biological. There are many environmental factors that could contribute to same sex attraction. For instance, someone who is sexually abused as a child is much more prone to develop same sex attraction later in life. That is not to say that everyone who is abused as a child develops same sex attraction, or that everyone who has same sex attraction had something horrific happen in their childhood. Everyone has a different psychological make-up and responds to stimuli differently. However, it is during these imprint years that shape our personalities and preferences. Who we are and who we become can all be traced back to our childhood.

A person with same sex attraction may not choose how they feel. However, having same sex attraction in and of itself does not make a person gay. Our actions are what define us, and it is only when those feelings are acted upon that makes a person a homosexual. Once acted upon, the behavior becomes cemented, making it more difficult to change (but not impossible).

Is being gay normal?
It can be concluded through reason, logic, and natural law that homosexuality is not normal. First, let’s address the emotional aspects of same sex attraction. A person with same sex attraction may feel a certain way, but feelings alone to not determine if something is right, wrong, or natural. If it were, then nothing could be wrong or unnatural.  To go a step further, pedophiles could also claim they were born that way.

The objection to this is of course is the issue of “consent”. Our moral standards have been brought so low that for many consent is the only standard left. However, what is consensual is also not a good indicator of what is morally right. There are plenty of instances of consensual sex that is not good. Adultery, for example, which ruins families.

Second, biology. Our bodies are designed for heterosexual relationships. Biologically, male genitalia is made to go with female genitalia, and the whole purpose of sex is for reproduction. If homosexuality were natural, then why do all humans and animals require a male and female to reproduce? As Dr. Charles King puts it, “Normalcy is that which functions according to its design.” 

Lastly, it can be concluded that homosexuality is not natural because gay men, in particular, are more prone to STDs. In fact, according to the CDC, in 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections  I would add here that is everyone practiced celibacy until marriage, like the Bible suggestions, STDs would be virtually eradicated.

What’s wrong with gay marriage?
The traditional (nuclear) family unit is the basic building block of any society. The intent of marriage ultimately is to rear families. When the family unit breaks down, society will fall apart simultaneously. For instance, the single biggest indicator if a child will succeed in life is if both parents (father and mother) remain together. That is one of a myriad of reasons why traditional marriage is important. It is therefore logical to conclude that preserving traditional marriage is beneficial even necessary for a healthy society.

Nowhere is this more self-evident than in the fall of ancient Rome and the preceding breakdown of the family. Roman honor and respect for marriage had virtually become extinct. Roman marriages had greatly deteriorated and had become a loose and voluntary compact in which religious and civil rites were no longer essential. Adultery and promiscuity were rampant. A married man could sleep with unmarried women and prostitutes and it was not considered adultery. Women of high-ranking families would ask for their names to be entered among the public prostitutes so they would not be punished for adultery. In the end Rome disintegrated from the inside out, and the breakdown of the family was a major contributor.

Gay marriage has essentially devalued marriage the same way as the Romans did, but in a way that has never been done in the history of the world, by redefining marriage. This fact alone should have given us pause to consider the ramifications of gay marriage instead rushing headlong with reckless abandonment. One has to consider that if marriage has to be redefined, then it is no longer really a marriage anymore, but an imitation of a marriage. It is the opinion of the author that getting married has always been a religious ceremony, and that the government should stay out of the business of marriage altogether.

The problem with redefining marriage is that it opens Pandora’s Box to be redefined indefinitely. This leaves the door open for pluralistic marriages (one women with multiple men, one man with multiple women, and multiple women and men all married together, etc), even marriages with an inanimate objects (yes, this has really happened). Basically, anything that can be conceived, no matter how ridiculous, can become a “marriage”. When marriage can be redefined to mean anything, it becomes meaningless. It is no longer marriage, but a mockery of marriage. 

Another consequence of gay marriage is it has infringed on religious freedoms. Businesses are especially vulnerable, such as bakers and photographers who have refused to participate in gay weddings because of their religious convictions. Note that they did not object to serving gays, just not participating in gay marriages. Such people have become at risk of losing their means of making a living simply for refusing to be indentured servants. It has also opened the door to religious persecution. In various parts of the western world there is an increasing push to criminalize the dissent of homosexuality.

Finally, gay marriage has created a plethora of issues that did not exist before. Homosexuality is being taught to very young children without the consent of parents. Drag queens have been invited to speak at schools. Bathrooms are being made to accommodate a very small segment of society, allowing biological men to use restrooms with young girls. All of which can be easily exploited with someone of nefarious intent. The next step will ultimately be communal bathrooms.

Gender and social norms are being destroyed wonton without any consideration of the consequences. Where does it end exactly? The truth is it will never end. Just as the focus has shifted from gay marriage when it was normalized to transgenderism and gender dysphoria, it will focus on something else when they are normalized. In the end what you have left is social anarchy with no moral absolutes.

What about transgenderism?
Transgenderism is a relatively new term, coined in 1965, to replace the term transsexual (which is also a relatively new term). But it is a contradiction in terms. It is physically impossible to change gender\sex. Hormone injections, surgery, makeup, etc. are purely superficial cosmetic changes. Males will still have a prostrate, large hands, Y chromosome, Adam’s apple, a propensity for male pattern baldness, a larger male skeletal frame with broad shoulders, etc. And females will still have X chromosome, small hands, a smaller skeletal frame with wide hips, a uterus, etc.

Transgenders make a very small percentage of the population. For 99% of people, their biological sex is their gender. When gender dysmorphia does occur, it usually corrects itself by adulthood, unless encouraged by outside forces. Once it was labeled as a mental illness, but has changed due to the powerful LGBT lobby. A mental illness does not suddenly not become a mental illness because it is socially acceptable or because someone says so. This is evident by the suicide rates among tansgenders, which is notoriously high (upwards of 40% percent). Mental illness and suicides often go hand-in-hand. And contrary to some opinions, it is not due to discrimination. Many groups have suffered discrimination, but do not have corresponding levels of suicide. And in an age where discrimination of transgenders is at and all time low, suicides are still prevalent (even after having surgery).

In recent years there has been a false distinction between gender and sex, but this is a modern concept. Any pre-politically correct dictionary will tell you that sex and gender are synonymous. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, for instance, says gender means “A sex, male or female. Hence,”. In its simplest terms it means “beget, or to be born”. A person can conceive of an infinite number of genders, which have no scientific basis, but biologically there are only two. A person may feel a certain way, but feelings cannot be a factor in measuring appropriate behavior or what is normal, otherwise incest and pedophilia couldn’t be inappropriate behaviors. Feelings do not define us, our actions are what define who we are.

The LGBT’s intent has been to destroy gender roles. They believe that gender roles are purely a social construct. However, an examination of history will reveal that’s not true. There’s a reason why men have primarily been the fighters and hunters of society, while women have historically been the homemakers and caretakers of society. This was universally true across every culture, independent of each other. That is because these gender roles suited the sexes physically and psychologically. Men by nature are stronger and more aggressive, making them more suitable for certain roles, and women are more emotional and nurturing by nature, making them more ideal for certain roles. Thus gender roles are organic and important to the functioning of society. It’s one thing for gender roles to develop organically, it’s another to try and change gender roles artificially as the LGBT is doing. Destroying gender roles only create confusion, new problems that did not exist before, and ultimately moral, social, and sexual anarchy. For more on that read The Dark Agenda of the LGBT.

The biblical world view is that God created male and female, making each distinct and having their own strengths, but coming together to make a whole. Our identity is not in our gender, race, ethnicity or anything else. In Christ there is neither male nor female, but we are all one in Christ. This is our identity, and once you know your identity there is no gender confusion.