Some so-called "Church Fathers" on virginity versus marriage

Virginity versus marriage  according to some so-called" "Church Fathers."  

 

Note that these were not founders or founders of the NT church in Scripture, but while pious, the uninspired writings of such men overall stand in   contrast to the quality and power of  wholly inspired-of-God Scripture, (2Tim. 3:16) and they too often evidence additions and a erroneous contrast to the teachings of Scripture, and which accretion of errors and traditions of men increased as years went on, that of distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels.

While Catholicism does not consider itself bound to believe all that those she deems to be church fathers taught,  here I will briefly document the views of a primary church "father, Jerome on virginity versus marriage, and statements of Augustine and Tertullian that relate to this which influenced the unscriptural Catholic position on required clerical celibacy (see last section on this page, by the grace of God.).  

Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he engaged in specious reasoning and abused Scripture to support his  imbalanced views, teaching,

If ‘it is good for a man not to touch a woman,’ then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good.   (''Letter'' 22).  

 

In "Against Jovinianus," book 1, on First Corinthians 7 he again  perversely reasons,  

 

“It is good,” he says, “for a man not to touch a woman.” If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness...

If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour. 
  

However, this is what is called a “false dilemma,” a fallacious “either/or dichotomy,” in which a statement as (to turn his reasoning around)

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate,” (Psalms 127:3-5)

must mean that having no children is necessarily bad and sad, since Jerome reasons that “there is no opposite to goodness but badness” yet Jerome makes marriage bad.

Instead, unless something is actually good or bad, as you either or you worship God or idols, and go to Heaven or Hell, then a choice is not necessarily right or wrong, while aside from clear moral choices then the right choice is relative to its purpose and effects.

“You can either have milk or orange juice” does not mean one is good or bad, but in the case of lactose intolerance then milk might be the wrong choice.

And as regards celibacy of marriage, the Bible commends both, but in the context of spiritual focus then celibacy is advocated, yet so is marriage as the norm in order to void fornication, as 1 Corinthians 7 teaches.

Next, we have another false dilemma from pious Jerome:

"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. 

 Yet by that logic he could not eat or sleep or minister to others in preaching, nor otherwise serve his fellow man, and thus presume to be more consecrated than the apostles themselves, most of whom were married, as well OT priests (though they were apart from their wives during their shift in the temple).

Thus while marriage is good and the bed undefiled, (Hebrews 13:4) and celibacy is spiritually advantageous in personal holiness and purely spiritual work, the status of both is not either good or bad, but what is best according to the call of God, and which is what the apostle proceeds to teach in 1 Corinthians 7 (which is much in response to a question about fathers and their marriageable daughters.

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. (1 Corinthians 7:7) Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. (1 Corinthians 7:24)

Meanwhile, holy focus is esp. enjoined as “the time is short,” this meaning before an event occurs that will change things, and in which I suspect that the “time is short” context may have been prophetically warning of the 70 AD catastrophic events and change ):

Going back to Jerome, he adds to his erroneous, biased reasoning by misapprehending Scripture and wrongly employing it to serve his purpose:

This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. And yet by the double number is represented another mystery: that not even in beasts and unclean birds is second marriage approved.

So much for Jesus sending out disciples 2 x 2 to minister and peach, (Mark 6:7) while "if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew" as Jerome says then we can see that "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31) 

Jerome further vainly attempts to make Genesis support him  in asserting:

 

The command to increase and multiply first finds fulfilment after the expulsion from paradise, after the nakedness and the fig-leaves which speak of sexual passion.    (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)

 

Yet besides the fact that nowhere are the fig-leaves shown to  speak of sexual passion, the command to  increase and multiply came before the Fall and its later fulfillment:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)

 

Below  will be some more in this subject by so-called “church fathers” - pious men but who progressively added extrascriptural traditions, not that Catholicism agrees with all such taught, yet they look to their accretions for support of distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)

 

Next we have Augustine who taught that one cannot engage in marital relations without sinful lust:

the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm 

For the belief was, as Harding (below) holds, "before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions]." But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!

However, the idea that  martial relations must be that of lust (though it often can be) due to it providing pleasure is not correct, else all that provides pleasure must be consider iniquitous. And as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin. 

Then we have Tertullian who argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication," partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]

Also regarding some strange views on the issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations, RC priest John A. Hardon, S.J stated, 

 

"some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm) 

For as "John of Damascus" wrote,

 

In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420. 

...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.s

html 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, as shown before, the command to be"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28) was given in paradise before the Fall. And nowhere is it even inferred that the sin of Adam and Eve was  that of having sexual relations. 

 

And while abstaining from any pleasure out of faith and love for God and service to Him will be rewarded, including continent celibacy, and which indeed has its advantages in focused spiritual endeavor as 1 Co. 7 teaches, yet the ancients cited above go beyond what Scripture teaches in promoting celibacy. 

1 Co. 7 teaches that in general the solution to fornication is to marry, and in which the bodies of the man and wife belong to each other, and commands marital relations in the context of avoiding sin. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) 

 

However, the apostle counsels a man not to seek a wife and to choose celibacy if he has that gift (v. 7, which I think has much to do with self-control) and a father to choose that for his  daughter in his home, unless burning with desire for a man feeling likewise.  (vs. 8,9) 

 

And the apostle moreover  urges  Christians   to be temperate in business with this world  and (using hyperbole) that "they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not." (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)  

And while this focus is to apply thru all time, yet as Paul prefaces this exhortation with"the time is short"  (1 Corinthians 7:29) then I think he was prophetically, even if unknowingly, preparing the people for the dramatic stresses and changes resulting from the destruction of the temple that would occur in 70AD.  

However, Scripture simply does not support the manner of denigration of martial relations and the married as second-class citizens they way men as Jerome did beginning with Genesis.  

And besides the reality that  nowhere in the New Testament are there any Catholic priests,  required clerical celibacy is not what Scripture teaches. The norm for both apostles and pastors was to be married. All but Paul and Barabas were married, and they had freedom to take a wife, versus being under a vow of celibacy. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5) 

 

And the requirements for pastors shows that the norm was such were married,  with being a father providing positive credentials for being a pastor, being "the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:2-5) Likewise it was expected that deacons be married. (v. 11)

 

And as referenced before, celibacy is a gift that not all have, and to require almost all  (Rome makes exceptions for some married ordained converts) clergy to have that gift is a unscriptural and foolish presumption.

 

Note also that RCs argue for  required celibacy for their priests based upon  the Hebrew Scriptures requiring that their Jewish priests refrain from intercourse before serving at the altar. (Leviticus 22:3 - 6) 

 

Yet  while Old Testament priests abstained from their wives while actually serving at the altar, they served in rotating shifts and could have sexual relations when not serving, as seen by Luke 1:5-13 (here is one explanation on the details of priestly service). Moreover, the text quoted (Leviticus 22:3-6) forbids any priest ministering in the holy things "having his uncleanness upon him," but being married did not render one to be in a state of continual uncleanness; only that one was unclean regarding such until the evening, after marital relations or any discharge of semen, and then washing. (Lv. 15:16-18) 

But contrary to Catholicism, the New Testament states that "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4). Moreover, NT presbyteros are never even distinctively called priests (as "hiereus," the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal  class of persons) nor shown uniquely exercising any sacerdotal function, which all believers are to do, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church.

   

And whose unique sacrificial function was not that of confecting the Eucharist, turning bread and wine into the "true" (but akin to docetism, one whose appearance does not confirm to what He manifestly materially was)  body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food (according to the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper), but that preaching the word being their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) eeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28)

 

 Which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) 

 

Hope this helps. http://peacebyjesus.net  

Papal Presumption:  The Assumption of Mary
 

In 1950 pope Pius XII (in Munificentissimus Deus) presumed to declare as a divinely revealed dogma, and require belief, in the Assumption of Mary,  that  the perpetual 'Virgin Mary,  was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." And equally audacious, he even claimed that such was "based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation," and forbade any to  counter his declaration.

However, it is not simply the absence in Scripture of any record or prophesy for this alleged particular event, but also from early history, which is where it belongs, versus being a fable that developed into doctrine latter.  Instead of such needed testimony, we have the popes reasoning that "it seems impossible to think of her [Mary]... being apart from Him in body...after this earthly life. (Munificentissimus Deus)

Yet the Lord has no problem with the rest of the deceased believers for whom He died, being absent in body but present with the Lord, as Mary is  as well. And such await the Lord's return for their resurrected glorified bodies. (Mt. 24:31;   1Co. 15:52; 1Thes. 4:16,17) But the popes presumption is that of reading into Scripture and history  the reasoning of men, and is part of the hyper exaltation of the fabricated  Mary of Catholicism,  thinking of mortals "above that which is written," contra 1Co. 4:6).

Examining the evidence, let us first read what assumption supporter RC Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. confessed:

In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.

The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."

...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....

In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...

Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.

The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...

...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469
And William Webster documents,

...the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ˜there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...' (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source.

[The eminent Mariologist, Juniper Carol, O.F.M.] gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history's mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).

The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo –Melito' (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149).
Also,

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
Also, Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, states:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

William Webster further states,

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:...

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.

2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).

3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).

4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).

5) An insertion was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that ˜in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.' - https://christiantruth.com/articles/assumption

The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn't die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5). A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:

"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)

 Finally from Ratzinger we see the solution to such lack of evidential warrant for making belief in an event over 17000 years after it allegedly occurred. Which is that Rome can claim to "remember" what she wants.

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine).

For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228.

Also, here is some material on the Protoevangelium of James and the Bible, which Catholicism cites for support of the perpetual virginity of Mary which is related to her hyper-exaltation in Catholicism, contrary to the admonition of 1 Corinthians 4:6 "not to think of men above that which is written" and which one of the many issues that divide faithful Christianity from Catholicism.

What Christians Can Do in the Wake of Orlando (in response to what the Left says we must do).

Time magazine was quick to employ a homosexual Christian — a contradiction in terms — to tell us "What Christians Must Do in the Wake of Orlando" (http://time.com/4366465/christians-after-orlando), and true to form, it was quick to blame Christians for causing "deep, lasting pain in LGBT people’s lives," even asserting that "Unless you’ve long been a vocal advocate for LGBT people, you’ve likely contributed to that suffering—intentionally or not." (In contrast "gay clubs" were described as providing "a unique place of refuge, comfort and solidarity for LGBT people.") Therefore the first unGodly demand is that Christians are to see themselves guilty of causing justified LGBT anger.

In response we should point out that while the Left portrays the like of Fred Phelps as Christians, yet in contrast those who most strongly oppose homosexual relations typically condemn the likes of Phelps, and instead support deliverance from the destructive homosexual lifestyle. For indeed, for decades the primary agent of premature death of homosexuals has been and is other homosexuals due to their practices.

Meanwhile, if anything, most others who call themselves Christians are too intimidated by the psychological tactics used by the homosexual activists (such as labeling all non-supporters injurious, irrational "homophobic" "haters") to express disapproval of homosexuality, while homosexual activists are even angry at them for not manifestly supporting their agenda.

Secondly, the Time editorialist asks that we remember that the Orlando massacre was not simply gun violence, but was fueled by homophobic hatred, like as anti-Christian animus should be stated as the cause of Christians are being murdered by ISIS. However, we may point out that the author refuses to say that both are fueled by Islamic hatred which resorts to violence. In contrast to which, Christians are to wage war after the Spirit, by prayer, preaching and outreach.

Moreover, if simply opposing a group is that of irrational, iniquitous hatred then homosexuals themselves are guilty of such, as their apparent loathing and hatred of those who oppose their consistent demands for acceptance and affirmation is abundantly manifest. And which includes their wanton unwarranted and provocative use of the term "homophobic." If homosexual activists really believed that all who oppose their agenda or even fail to support it are driven by some irrational fear of them, or that they may be homosexual themselves, then it is they who are possessed by an irrational delusion.

Yet here it should be asked what reaction should be expected if another consensual practice, perhaps taking part in the Lord's Supper, resulted in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death — even well over 600,000 Americans alone — primarily due to male with male sexual relations?

Of course, homosexual relations are wrong even apart from the deleterious physical effects, and its consequences, as with all sin, extended beyond this life and into eternity Thus the Christian response should be, "how can I love by neighbor as myself if I do not warn them of, and help deliver them from, impenitently practicing that which will likely send them to an early grave and certainly an eternal Hell?

However, the author lastly says that we are not to express disagreement with same-sex marriage as part of our condemnation of murdered LGBT persons, but that instead we are only to say God loves lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people unconditionally and be committed to making the church the sanctuary it always should have been for them.

Thus once again the homosexual author insists upon only affirmation of homosexuals, with "an openness to learn and grow," while decrying the intolerance of others.

The overall message behind this demonic seduction is that Christians are the ones who are guilty of causing LGBT people to suffer due to their opposition to the homosexual agenda, or even by failing to provide long term support of it, and thus in restitution they must cease from the former and engage in the latter. Failure to do so means one can be condemned with the "homophobic hater" who took it upon himself to slay 50 homosexuals. Which event we can expect will be officially made an annual day of observance.

What then should the Christian Response be in the Wake of Orlando? That of condemning the lawless murder of people by a fundamental Islamist, yet emphasizing that we seek the deliverance of all souls, and who are all called to repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ to save them by His sinless shed blood. Including LGBT people, as homosexual relations are wrong, and are also actually the cause of the most premature deaths to homosexuals overall.

A final word is that any reproof often is met with the assertion that love and forgiveness and "love thy enemy" is contrary to opposing those who impenitently practice sin, and even promote it. And note that the reason the issue of homosexuality attracts so much attention by evangelical types is because it is heavily promoted. If heroin use was also promoted likewise as healthy and normative and on the same scope then it would also attract holy lightening.

And Scripture states:

He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them. (Proverbs 24:24-25)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. (Acts 24:25)

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (Acts 7:53-54)

What is censured is impenitent, self-righteous hypocritical judging and censorious spirit:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? (Romans 2:3)

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?...Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1,2,5)

Those who invoke Mt. 7:1 to disallow the censure of others are actually being hypocritical, as they are engaging in the very thing they condemn.

I myself would be wrong if i were intent of finding fault with others, and was looking down at others as if i "arrived," as i certainly know i sin in heart and in deed, though i do not want to and am repentant, and I oppose condemning those who are repentant. But that does not mean i cannot condemn something as wrong, as long as I would condemn it if i myself were impenitently engaging in such, and esp. promoting it.

And it is one thing to strive and struggle to live according to God's standards, and another thing to misconstrue the word of God to accommodate your own standards.

Moreover, Scripture also teaches that some sins are worse than others, as can be the degree of guilt of the transgressor.

Therefore not all sins are capital offenses. A thief must make restitution for his theft, and a consensual fornication btwn a unmarried male and female couple required marriage, while a murderer or adulterer must pay with his life,

Another example:

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; (Genesis 18:20)

The "very great" dominant sin here was not something like failing to build a fence around their flat roofs, (cf. Dt. 22:8) but was manifestly that of the "vile" thing that the men in the parallel account of Judges 19 sought to engage in, that of sexually knowing the strangers, in addition to the accompanying "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness," and neglect of the needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

Likewise it is not mere childish strifes that the Lord strongly condemned in His critiques of the churches, (Rv. 2,3) but things such as fornication and idolatry.

Moreover, there are sins of the flesh that a person of otherwise relative good character can struggle with, while the worse sins are those that flow from a evil character in heart:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:17-19)

In addition to the above, the degree of guilt is determined relative to the light and grace one has. The son of a good preacher who engages in premeditated murder is more accountable than one who is raised in a gang.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:48)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15)

Thus the most accountable souls are actually Christians who terminally fall away"

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

More reproof of prohomosexual polemics can be seen here , by the grace of God.