If a Christian Doesn't Eat Meat, He Still Isn't a Vegetarian (or Vegan for that Matter).

A Christian may or may not eat meat. That’s a matter of preference. But Vegetarianism and Veganism are religious worldviews set against the Biblical worldview. Those holding to these positions are attempting to enforce a religion of paganism upon those who do not share that view. Please view this animal rights video by Dr. Mealanie Joy, then consider my response, to a non-meat-eating Christian. Happily, the person to whom I addressed this note sees through the paganism of the video.

Re the Dr. Melanie Joy video.

Dear,                 

I can understand there are health arguments against eating meat, as well as issues regarding cruelty to animals in modern farming. But the main argument in this video betrays a thoroughly pagan worldview. I’ll leave the health issue aside for now, but the worldview of the presenter worries me.

Shortly into the video, she refers to animals as “individuals,” a term in normal use is reserved for people. Yes, each animal is an individual animal, but not an individual person, as we usually use the word, by itself, of people. Her comparisons between pigs, chickens, cows, and human infants are jarring. This is the same approach to human infants that the pro-abortion movement takes—that the infant is no more than an animal. Ironically, the same people who have no problem aborting a human infant are very often opposed to any use of animals. I am 99% certain that she considers herself “prochoice.” What “heterosexism” has to do with vegetarianism and veganism is beyond me, but it rounds out my perception of her worldview.

The problem with a pagan worldview is that it reduces man to nature, and denies, first of all, the existence of a God who is an uncreated creator of all things. Paganism identifies nature with God—pantheism, so God is a part of nature and by extension, all of nature is a part of God. Secondly, paganism denies the Biblical teaching that man is uniquely created in the image of God, and by virtue of that image, man has dominion over creation (there are very important implications in this doctrine, read Genesis 1:26-31). Without this uniqueness, law, judgement, sin, salvation, and holiness are meaningless, because man is an animal with no unique stature nor responsibility before God.

Dr. Joy raises the issue of animal rights, a phrase which is rarely thought out. In the traditions of Western societies, humans have rights; and humans have responsibilities to animals. If animal rights were the case (and she brings the term “social justice” to her argument), then animals are a part of society such as a human is.

To speak of human rights, means that a human must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. So if animals have rights, it means that an animal can never be deprived of its life or liberty without due process, that is, without a court order, such as is the case when a human is tried and found guilty of a crime. Nor can humans be used for slavery or experimentation, but these things are seen as inhumane (the Nazis and Planned Parenthood are modern examples of the horrors of such abuse).

If animals are afforded “rights,” it must be asked, “who grants these rights?” Is it God? Not in paganism. It is always man who grants rights in paganism, and as history shows, man can take rights away from those he deems unfit. Thus in pagan America and Canada, man has determined that the unborn have no rights and are not human.

Quite practically, if animals are given the same rights as humans, all elimination of disease-carrying pests must be made illegal: rats, mice, mosquitoes, etc., all have a right to life. Antibiotics are also forbidden, as they kill of entire populations of bacteria.

This may seem like an extreme example, but once rights are afforded to a class, the size, age, intelligence, or perceived value of that class must be deemed irrelevant. An animal is an animal.

This also holds true for animal testing for life-saving medications. While I think that cosmetic testing is cruel (and cosmetics don’t help most of those who use them anyway), I am in full favour of using an animal to test a drug or medication for effectiveness or harmful side effects. Pigs have been bread for the sole purpose of harvesting their skin for burn transplants. Paganism may see that as illegitimate, but it is illegitimate only if the Biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God is ignored.

So if one wishes to be a vegetarian or vegan from a Christian viewpoint, it must be done so without confusing man and animal. The Bible does teach, by the way, compassionate animal husbandry. The vegetarian does, however, have to deal with passages throughout the Bible that permits the eating of meat (and commands it in the case of the priests—see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The Old Testament has strict limits on diet, as is well known.

In the New Testament, Jesus made it clear that the dietary restrictions were a thing of the past (note vss 18-19):

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

It might also be good to remember that Jesus served fish (John 6:9; Luke 9:16; Mark 6:38; John 21:9)!

Furthermore, when the Gospel is preached, food is used to convince a faithful Hebrew Christian (Peter) that if foods are not to be rejected as unclean, neither should people (Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11). Galatians 2:11-14 only makes sense if we understand that Paul allowed eating any kind of meat. His prohibitions on meat eating in his other letters are about the unique sense of where the meat was purchased, that is, a pagan temple. He did not allow it if it violated a Christian’s conscience.

So in summary,

  1. The Biblical worldview says that man is created in the image of God, and therefore separate from animal, and any appeal to vegetarianism must not cross those boundaries.
  2. Animals, while under the care, stewardship, and dominion of man, do not have human rights.
  3. Advocating for animal rights is an act of sinful rebellion, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18—32). In this manner, vegetarianism and veganism is very dangerous to the Christian.
  4. The Bible advocates the eating of meat, and does not forbid it. Therefore, vegetarianism or veganism cannot be made a law to which Christians are subject. It is a matter of Christian liberty.

 

46schaeffer

I’ve attached a chart, from Francis Schaeffer, which explains the nature of the “chasm” between God and creation, and between man and the rest of creation. The first slide shows what the Biblical worldview teaches, that there is a “chasm” between God and His creation; that is, He is entirely separate from and not dependent upon, in any way, what He created. The second slide shows that there is also, within creation itself, a separation between man and all other entities, living or otherwise, in creation.

God, Creation, Chasm God, Creation, and us

I hope this helps you in your evaluation of this video. Eating meat or not is a choice you can make. But to call oneself a vegetarian or vegan is to be aligned with a movement that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. This is by no means meant to be a rebuke, but a way to help you see the implications of the worldview of this particular presentation.

In the Lamb,

Scott

 

If a Christian Doesn’t Eat Meat, He Still Isn’t a Vegetarian (or Vegan for that Matter).

A Christian may or may not eat meat. That’s a matter of preference. But Vegetarianism and Veganism are religious worldviews set against the Biblical worldview. Those holding to these positions are attempting to enforce a religion of paganism upon those who do not share that view. Please view this animal rights video by Dr. Mealanie Joy, then consider my response, to a non-meat-eating Christian. Happily, the person to whom I addressed this note sees through the paganism of the video.

Re the Dr. Melanie Joy video.

Dear,                 

I can understand there are health arguments against eating meat, as well as issues regarding cruelty to animals in modern farming. But the main argument in this video betrays a thoroughly pagan worldview. I’ll leave the health issue aside for now, but the worldview of the presenter worries me.

Shortly into the video, she refers to animals as “individuals,” a term in normal use is reserved for people. Yes, each animal is an individual animal, but not an individual person, as we usually use the word, by itself, of people. Her comparisons between pigs, chickens, cows, and human infants are jarring. This is the same approach to human infants that the pro-abortion movement takes—that the infant is no more than an animal. Ironically, the same people who have no problem aborting a human infant are very often opposed to any use of animals. I am 99% certain that she considers herself “prochoice.” What “heterosexism” has to do with vegetarianism and veganism is beyond me, but it rounds out my perception of her worldview.

The problem with a pagan worldview is that it reduces man to nature, and denies, first of all, the existence of a God who is an uncreated creator of all things. Paganism identifies nature with God—pantheism, so God is a part of nature and by extension, all of nature is a part of God. Secondly, paganism denies the Biblical teaching that man is uniquely created in the image of God, and by virtue of that image, man has dominion over creation (there are very important implications in this doctrine, read Genesis 1:26-31). Without this uniqueness, law, judgement, sin, salvation, and holiness are meaningless, because man is an animal with no unique stature nor responsibility before God.

Dr. Joy raises the issue of animal rights, a phrase which is rarely thought out. In the traditions of Western societies, humans have rights; and humans have responsibilities to animals. If animal rights were the case (and she brings the term “social justice” to her argument), then animals are a part of society such as a human is.

To speak of human rights, means that a human must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. So if animals have rights, it means that an animal can never be deprived of its life or liberty without due process, that is, without a court order, such as is the case when a human is tried and found guilty of a crime. Nor can humans be used for slavery or experimentation, but these things are seen as inhumane (the Nazis and Planned Parenthood are modern examples of the horrors of such abuse).

If animals are afforded “rights,” it must be asked, “who grants these rights?” Is it God? Not in paganism. It is always man who grants rights in paganism, and as history shows, man can take rights away from those he deems unfit. Thus in pagan America and Canada, man has determined that the unborn have no rights and are not human.

Quite practically, if animals are given the same rights as humans, all elimination of disease-carrying pests must be made illegal: rats, mice, mosquitoes, etc., all have a right to life. Antibiotics are also forbidden, as they kill of entire populations of bacteria.

This may seem like an extreme example, but once rights are afforded to a class, the size, age, intelligence, or perceived value of that class must be deemed irrelevant. An animal is an animal.

This also holds true for animal testing for life-saving medications. While I think that cosmetic testing is cruel (and cosmetics don’t help most of those who use them anyway), I am in full favour of using an animal to test a drug or medication for effectiveness or harmful side effects. Pigs have been bread for the sole purpose of harvesting their skin for burn transplants. Paganism may see that as illegitimate, but it is illegitimate only if the Biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God is ignored.

So if one wishes to be a vegetarian or vegan from a Christian viewpoint, it must be done so without confusing man and animal. The Bible does teach, by the way, compassionate animal husbandry. The vegetarian does, however, have to deal with passages throughout the Bible that permits the eating of meat (and commands it in the case of the priests—see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The Old Testament has strict limits on diet, as is well known.

In the New Testament, Jesus made it clear that the dietary restrictions were a thing of the past (note vss 18-19):

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

It might also be good to remember that Jesus served fish (John 6:9; Luke 9:16; Mark 6:38; John 21:9)!

Furthermore, when the Gospel is preached, food is used to convince a faithful Hebrew Christian (Peter) that if foods are not to be rejected as unclean, neither should people (Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11). Galatians 2:11-14 only makes sense if we understand that Paul allowed eating any kind of meat. His prohibitions on meat eating in his other letters are about the unique sense of where the meat was purchased, that is, a pagan temple. He did not allow it if it violated a Christian’s conscience.

So in summary,

  1. The Biblical worldview says that man is created in the image of God, and therefore separate from animal, and any appeal to vegetarianism must not cross those boundaries.
  2. Animals, while under the care, stewardship, and dominion of man, do not have human rights.
  3. Advocating for animal rights is an act of sinful rebellion, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18—32). In this manner, vegetarianism and veganism is very dangerous to the Christian.
  4. The Bible advocates the eating of meat, and does not forbid it. Therefore, vegetarianism or veganism cannot be made a law to which Christians are subject. It is a matter of Christian liberty.

 

46schaeffer

I’ve attached a chart, from Francis Schaeffer, which explains the nature of the “chasm” between God and creation, and between man and the rest of creation. The first slide shows what the Biblical worldview teaches, that there is a “chasm” between God and His creation; that is, He is entirely separate from and not dependent upon, in any way, what He created. The second slide shows that there is also, within creation itself, a separation between man and all other entities, living or otherwise, in creation.

God, Creation, Chasm God, Creation, and us

I hope this helps you in your evaluation of this video. Eating meat or not is a choice you can make. But to call oneself a vegetarian or vegan is to be aligned with a movement that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. This is by no means meant to be a rebuke, but a way to help you see the implications of the worldview of this particular presentation.

In the Lamb,

Scott

 

Kinder Surprise: “Kinder Drag Alter Ego”

So, to be brief: one person’s confusion becomes that person’s right to confuse children. This is as creepy as it sounds. Article from the Hamilton Spectator

You may find this perspective refreshing.

Kinder Surprise: "Kinder Drag Alter Ego"

So, to be brief: one person’s confusion becomes that person’s right to confuse children. This is as creepy as it sounds. Article from the Hamilton Spectator

You may find this perspective refreshing.

Spiritual Warfare

We should remember that the Christian is only taking back from Satan that which was never his in the first place–the Christian conducts warfare to repossess in Christ’s name what was ceded to Satan through sin. There is not one element of Creation that rightfully belongs to the Devil; not children, not the family, not marriage, not education, not civil government, not science, not the arts, not language, not labour nor economics. All this and more has been usurped by him, and gladly given over to him through human sinfulness.

Christians Need to Stop Making Gay Jokes

Perhaps not for the reasons usually given, that it is unloving or unkind to do so. A careful reading of Ephesians 5:3-14 helps us understand why it is always inappropriate to make light of sin.

3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Ephesians 5:3–14 (ESV)

The internet is a place where much is said that should not be said. This point is driven home, at least to me, by the events that have and are still unfolding in the popular culture around the area of human sexuality, morals, and law. I won’t rehearse these here, as I assume that any reading this are also somewhat aware of the news.

Before moving forward with this article, I want to explain how I came to discuss this text. I have been preaching through the book of Ephesians since January of this year. I tend to preach through Biblical books, rather than skip around the Bible, and I rarely preach on a topic by using multiple texts. This avoids preaching that is only a reaction to the present, and helps to protect me from the accusation of using a “bully pulpit” to attack specific matters that I find important. This method might even help me to avoid a certain kind of staleness, although I’m sure I can find other kinds of staleness to inflict on my hearers.

Having said this, I did not arrange my preaching schedule to coincide with the recent SCOTUS decision in the United States. When setting out to preach through a book, I am, until closer to a particular Sunday, unsure as to how large the passage under consideration will be. Add to that uncertainty a day off for illness, a shortened vacation, another Sunday at home but not preaching, and the text landed where it did. I don’t arrange messages around human events, be they the gay pride festivals or governmental policy shifts.

The text from Ephesians was divided by me into two sections for the sake of time; these were the texts of two sermons, preached June 21st and June 28th. I would like to draw the readers’ attention an expository outline which is a kind of building-block for the sermon. The reader will note that there are a series of three triads, the first and second are identical (note that in this outline form, the entire text has not been reproduced):

Triad 1: this must not even be named among you, (said as done):

1.       Vs 3: sexual immorality (Logical contrastive with vss 1-2 and continuation of 4:25-31

2.       and all impurity

3.       or covetousness

Triad 2: this must not be said (which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving).

1.       no filthiness

2.        nor foolish talk

3.       nor crude joking,

Triad 3: Because these things are exclusionary from an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God

1. the sexually immoral

2. the impure,

3. the covetous (that is, an idolater),

Warning:

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words,

for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Please notice the emphasis placed on speech in this passage. “not be named” (vs 3, and this is an imperative, not a suggestion); vs 4, filthiness, foolish talk, coarse jesting; and vs 6, “empty words.” Placing the three kinds of speaking of the second triad in the middle of the other two, may be considered a form of an inclusion. That may or may not be the case, but it is here, I believe to place an emphasis on speech. “Filthiness aischrontē , foolish talk mōrologia, and crude joking eutraelia” are all hapax legomena, that is, they do not occur anywhere else in the Greek New Testament, nor, as it happens do they occur in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, completed about 200 BC).

Filthiness is, according to the Liddell and Scott lexicon, “obscenity,” and can be a euphemism for fellatio. Foolish talk is “silly talk, nonsense, and can describe one’s being mad (insane). Crude joking describes “wit, vulgarities, mocking derision” etc. The first term seems to always be associated with sexual behaviour, but the other two are certainly readily present as well.

The placing of these three ways of speaking, between a repetition of sexual immorality, impurity, and covetousness (idolatry) as it does indicates that these are ways of speaking about sexual sin specifically—the concern of this passage is not that people would be silly and witty in general, but specifically about sexual sin.

It is, clearly sexual sin that is the topic here. This is what is actually up for much debate today, but I do believe that Queer exegesis is over. One must accept the authority of the Scriptures or not, and if not, at least have the integrity to say so.

First Term in Triads 1 & 3 “sexual immorality”

 Sexual immorality (porneia) is obviously the source of our words “porn,” and  “pornography (written porn).” It would be very wrong, however, to limit the Biblical use to our current usage of the terms. It is a simple matter to see how the Scriptures use this term.

The root of this word is pornē (prostitute). Consider how it is used in the New Testament:

Porneía: “sexual immorality” 8 times in 7 verses

Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind •that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.

1 Cor 6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

2 Cor 12:21I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,

Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Rev 19:2 for his judgments are true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”

Pornē “prostitute” 4 times in 4 verses

1 Cor 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

Heb 11:31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.

James 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

Rev 17:15 And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages.

Pornos  “a sexually immoral person” and also refers to a catamite, the “receiving partner” in a male homosexual relationship. It occurs three times in three verses. Note that this is the use in one of the verses we are considering, Ephesians 5:5:

1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Eph 5:5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Heb 12:16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

Porneuō is “to commit sexual immorality.” It is the act itself. This is a verb. It occurs 8 times in 7 verses:

1 Cor 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

1 Cor 10:8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.

Rev 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Rev 17:2

with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.”

Rev 18:3

For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.”

Rev 18:9

And the kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning.

Ekporneuō is another verb meaning, “to engage in sexual immorality.” It occurs once in the New Testament

Jude 7

7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

[If the reader is interested, the entire word group is listed here, in Scriptural order].

Do note that the terms “sexual immorality” (Ephesians 5:3) and “an immoral person” (5:5) stem  from the same word group. It is very clear that Paul is speaking about all forms of sexual immorality, and it should not be supposed that he is only speaking to homosexuality, lesbianism, or transgenderism.

In the passages above, it is also clear  that sexual immorality includes adultery, incest, prostitution (literal and figurative), and covetousness. It is important to establish that sexual immorality is a violation of the 7th commandment: “you shall not commit adultery.”

Keeping this in mind, consider this:

The Second Term in Triads 1 & 3 “impurity”

For the interest in time and space, I will not discuss the word group from which akatharsia comes. The reader can find a complete list here. Do note, that this word is a negation of the word, katharos, “clean.”

The word in Ephesians 5:3 is akatharsia which negates the idea of purity or cleanliness by the addition of the “a” at the beginning of the word. This is common in Greek, and has carried over to English, such as a theist is one who believes in a deity, an atheist does not.

This term occurs 10 times in 10 verses:

Matt 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

2 Cor 12:21 I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,

Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

1 Thess 2:3 For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive,

1 Thess 4:7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

This is important: notice that out of the 10 occurrences of this word, six are explicitly about sexual behaviour. In fact, the two term “sexual immorality” and “impurity” are linked in 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, and Colossians 3:5.

In the LXX (Septuagint, Greek Old Testament), this word translates 10 Hebrew words, the most common is to be ceremonially unclean. But see, for example, in Leviticus 18:22, (and 20:13) (ESV), “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” “abomination” (Hebrew towweba). In the Old Testament, uncleanness was an abomination and homosexuality as well as all other sinful sexual relations are considered unclean.

The Third Term in Triads 1 & 3, “Covetousness.”

This word is a compound word, that takes two Greek words and makes one: “to have” (echō), and “to complete, fill; fulfill” (plēroō). From this construct we get, “covetousness” and “greed.” It occurs 10 times in the New Testament:

Mark 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

Luke 12:15 And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

2 Cor 9:5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction.

Eph 4:19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

1 Thess 2:5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness.

2 Pet 2:3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2 Pet 2:14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!

This word often is used to describe the coveting of material goods, but in Romans 1:29, Ephesians 4:19, 5:3, and Colossians 3:5 it is clearly used to describe a greed or desire in a sexual sense. This is in keeping with the 10th commandment, Exodus 20:17 (ESV) 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” In this comprehensive prohibition against coveting, the inclusion of the wife demonstrates a prohibition against lust.

Paul brings covetousness into sharper focus in the third triad, Ephesians 5:5, equating covetousness with idolatry. The connection between idolatry and material goods may seem obvious, but we must consider here the connection between lust and idolatry. Connecting sexual immorality, uncleanness, and covetousness (idolatry) make even better sense when it is remembered that the Ephesian Christians who came out of paganism were exposed to temple prostitution.

Now to Summarise:

At the risk of oversimplification, sexual sin is no laughing matter. This is not sodomy only (in all its many expressions), but all sexual sin. It is not a thing to be made light of, to be laughed about:

Ephesians 5:5 (ESV)

5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (ESV)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:6 (ESV)

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Connect the phrase in Ephesians 5:6, “the wrath of God comes” with Romans 1:18, “the wrath of God is revealed.” There is no room for levity here. Romans describes people who have so abandoned God that He has surrendered them to their lusts (Romans 1:24).

The “empty words” of Ephesians 5:6 are the words 5:4, as when light is made of these things, the true horror God’s judgement is diminished.

To be continued . . .

Blogging the Revised Sex-Education Curriculum 3: Math is Hard

Critics of critics of the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum are now pushing back, fearful of the result of the upcoming parents’ strike on May 4th-8th. They are pushing back, saying that parents are misinformed, and likely have not read the document. It is being said that the most radical elements are not even present in the curriculum.

The problem is, the document is in many places benign (and boring), and does not get into the worst part of this program. This is because the document does not go into the explicit detail that the curriculum ultimately will, and the graphic nature of the program, necessary to teach young children, has not be unveiled. Please don’t misunderstand–there is enough in the official document to create all the alarm. The in-the-school outworking of this guide will be horrible.

The Toronto District School Board has been at the forefront Comprehensive Sex Education. For example, The TDSB has distributed this poster, included here, that shows that, not only does “love have no gender” but it isn’t limited to two, either. But polyamory is not mentioned in the curriculum, isn’t this reactionary? No, because the curriculum is only a minimum guideline that allows any kind of deviance to be promoted. If parents think this curriculum is only about two people in committed relationships, they are naive indeed.

tdsbswingersgenderposte

Ontario Liberals to introduce updated version of sex education curriculum pulled in 2010 over religious objections

The new sex ed. curriculum will teach the following. Much of what would be taught would fall under the criminal code of “sexual interference” a few (better) years ago. My quick list below is not in any particular order of importance, and most will be explicit in their instruction, but some will be implied.   The destruction of faith and family has always been a stated goal of Marxist thought, and is certainly a goal of Cultural Marxism.

 

    1. Sex is a personal choice, and the authority of parents and religious faith are secondary to the self.
    1. The human person is autonomous. Nothing should impede personal freedom.
    1. Gender (male/female) is a social construct. The child may change gender at will, and identify with any number of options (see Facebook).
    1. Number in a sexual union is a social construct.
    1. Abortion is not evil, nor something which should bring shame or guilt.
    1. Abortion is acceptable for any reason at any time in a pregnancy, including the abortion of a baby of an undesired sex.
    2. Abortion is a good way to prevent children with birth defects from being born.
    1. Male, Female, single or two are optional and interchangeable in raising children. There is no preference to a stable, male/female parented family.
    2. Divorce is not a tragedy or failure.
    1. Sex before marriage in inevitable, so all precautions must be taken.
    1. Whatever you wish to do with your body is good and wholesome, as long as it is consensual and done safely.
    2. The State owns children.
    3. The State defines what constitutes marriage and family.
    4. The State supersedes religious faith and family.
    5. What is considered taboo now may well be approved by the State at a later time.
    6. Marriage is not for the endurance of the natural life of the married, and any number of unions may occur in a person’s life.
    7. Sodomy is not a sin, nor unnatural, nor a problem to solve. It is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality.
    8. Church and family must defer to State authorities on these matters.

 

What the Educational establishment doesn’t know (or does know and refuses to heed), is that Jesus words are true:

 

Matthew 18:5–6 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”