Taking Back God – 2

25 Feb

For our last post this internet session, we will look at a few more quotes from Leora Tanenbaum’s book, Taking Back God. Her book, to sum up, basically is telling people to sin against God and that God’s rules do not matter. This is the problem with the feminist movement, both  secular and religious. The people who participate and support his movement only want to do what they want and do not care about what God wants for his creation.

Again we are not attacking Ms. Tanenbaum but looking at the information she has provided in her book. For the record, Ms. Tanenbaum is a married practicing Jewish woman and she is very misguided in her views.

#1. A pastor’s wife shares here abortion story and the ‘lonely secrecy’ of the experience. Her husband was the one who suggested the abortion: they already had one child, she was coping with the fallout from major surgery and taking heavy duty medication, and he was completing seminary. (pg. 276)

A few things are wrong with the thinking in that situation. First, a pastor should know better than to suggest abortion. I do not care who they are, this option should never enter the minds of a Christian.  Second, none of the reasons given are compelling enough, scriptural or even logical to support the decision to abort or even convince someone to abort their pregnancy. Human life is worth more than all those reasons.

Third, if they were in this situation, then they should have either curbed their sexual activity or taken measures to prevent pregnancy. We at this website are not totally against contraceptives and the moral or ethical issues surrounding them are too involved to discuss here at this time. If you are against contraceptives but need to use them one thing to remember is that their use is not the unforgivable sin and people can re-establish their relationship with God.

Also, they should have consulted God on their options before continuing their sexual activity. Sex is not more important than human life and some people really need to get this concept through their heads. Sex isn’t life nor the only thing in life to experience and people need to put it back into its proper place and priority. It is not wrong to control your sexual activity in marriage, both the husband and the wife need to discuss this and agree before implementing any controls or alternate behavior and neither should seek outside sources for sexual release. Porn is not the answer either.

Christians have got to stop letting the secular world influence their views on different issues including sex and marriage.

#2. The religious fight against gay rights, like that against women’s reproductive rights, unites conservative Catholics and evangelical protestants. Both groups believe that homosexuality is a violation of ‘natural law’ and God-given roles for men and women. (pg. 277)

The problem in this issue is the word ‘rights’. It is not the violation of natural law or God-given roles. the word ‘rights’ is now being used to demolish the standard of sin, or right and wrong. People actually use this word to achieve anarchy instead of a well-governed society that is safe for all. We do not have all the rights in the world to act as we please and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Thankfully God has drawn that line with his standard of right and wrong.

Sadly, too many people do not like that standard thus they use code words, such as the word ‘rights’, to achieve their sinful goals and allow for all sorts of behavior to be practiced. What most people fail to realize is that the ‘gay rights’ issue is not about rights but about the freedom to practice sin openly and call it good. The homosexual community already had the right to marry, they just did not like the rules governing those rights so they fought to change the rules but that fight was hypocritical as they only fought to change the rules to fit their desires and no one elses’.

Their fight is not about rights but about right and wrong and feeling ‘normal’. Of course people are going to resist because we know that God is real and that sin destroys a nation not make it a better, more diverse, or safe place to live. These people have the ‘right’ to a well-governed society and the ‘right’ to outlaw certain behavior if we want to apply the homosexual community’s and their supporters’ logic to the issue. The homosexual community does not have the right to force their alternatives upon a nation that doesn’t want that alternative practiced. They should consider leaving that nation and journeying to their own land where they can freely practice what they want.

#3. Could the real fear be that – as with reproductive rights– women might recognize that the world doesn’t explode if they choose not to follow the conventional religious script? If gay and lesbian rights were legitimated, “the women must do this, the men must do that” blueprint would be meaningless. (pg. 277-8)

The world not exploding is not reason to allow for sinful behavior to be practiced unhindered or supported. Since there are many righteous and obedient people in the world, why destroy their obedience by punishing them with the evil doers? No that logic makes no sense and is not justification to alter the rights of people to allow for sinful activity, whether it be reproductive or alternative sexual rights.

God has left enough examples of what happens to those who sin against him and if that is not enough to sway their decisions to sin, then nothing will do it. The world will end someday and then when these people see the reality it will be too late to change their decisions to what is the right thing to do. What we see by this logic is a selfish attitude, one that seeks only their desires and to heck with anyone else.

#4. Conservative Christians  as well as Orthodox Jews have largely adopted the position of ‘loving the sinner but hating the sin’ in an effort to show compassion for gay men and lesbians and allowing them to be a part of their religious community while refusing to condone gay sexual behavior. What this means in practice is a demand that gay and lesbians remain celibate their entire lives. But sexuality is an integral part of the human experience, and to deny someone the right to be sexual seems to be cruel and even a denial of his or her full humanity. (pg. 279)

The first verse that comes to mind is the passage of scripture where Jesus tells us if our eyes or hands cause us to sin then we need to pluck them or cut them out. He said it is better to enter the kingdom crippled than got to hell fully formed. These words apply to homosexuals as well. Wouldn’t be better that they entered into heaven cutting off their homosexuality instead of practicing it and being thrown into hell?

The second verse is that if a homosexual truly repents, then they are made new creatures and their old ways have been removed and passed away. They are not homosexuals anymore in Christ thus their sexuality has been changed to something new. The converted homosexual should not be forced to be celibate as that is a choice reserved for them and God not the church congregation. With that said,though, the converted homosexual cannot be encouraged to return to their old ways and be allowed to practice homosexuality again. That would make them worse than they were before.

We do not allow converted people to practice sin, but that is what Ms. Tanenbaum advocates here and that is why we can say she is misguided. It isn’t a matter of being fully human or that sex is a large part of human life. People place far too much importance on sex and its practice and that is not the correct way to think. We can give up sexual practices if it means we are going to hell and we do not lose our full humanity. It means we are protecting it because we want to go to heaven instead.

Ms. Tanenbaum is confused about what makes up humanity and misleads a lot of her readers.

#5. Those of us who are heterosexual need to remember that their struggle is our struggle. (pg. 280)

Uhm…no. If there is any common struggle it is the struggle to be free from sin and learn how to resist temptation.  Homosexual rights are not our struggle at all. In this issue our struggle is to keep those selfish people from destroying civilization because their sins are accepted and called good. There is more to this issue than the homosexual marrying the one they ‘love’. But the homosexual community and its supporters are too blind to see the bigger picture or accept it if they have been shown it.

No we do not support sin nor call it good but be the light unto the world no matter how much the world complains. They are the ones who refuse to follow the rules not the believer.

Comments Off on Taking Back God – 2

Posted by on February 25, 2016 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, education, faith, family, General Life, history, Justice, leadership, politics, theology


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: