Negative Effects of so called “same sex marriage” – just a few off the top of my head

James Bradshaw (a homosexual) wrote:  (At Denny Burk’s blog in the comment box)

see here. 

Explain to me providing a *civil* marriage license to us negatively impacts heterosexual marriage (or anything else) in some tangible fashion.

1. Because it perverts the only true definition of marriage. Matthew 19:1-7; Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2.

Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 – God make them male and female.  This completely destroys the common false statement that many homosexuals, liberals, and modern people say, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”.  Yes He did!  By quoting from Genesis 1:27-28, that God is creator and in the beginning created “male and female” and “the two will become one flesh” in Genesis 2:24, Jesus rebuked any kind of other idea of a so called “same sex marriage”.

“God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, as the first couple who were to get married; which is still a great phrase that I am not afraid of, since it is truth. Jesus said, “the two” will become one flesh – only one man and one woman for marriage; period.

2. All other definitions and openings are perversions and create confusion in our society and culture, which we see constantly in the news with all the gender confusion, gender reassignment, sex change operations, man-boy lover associations, Transgenders, Bi-sexuals, and polygamy, poly-amourous, promiscuity, orgies, pornography, adulteries, pre-marital sexual promiscuity, fornication, etc.

3. so called same sex marriage, if that couple also adopts a child or children, is confusing to the children and it is by nature child abuse, no matter how “nice” or “kind” or “loving” the homosexual couple is. Even if some heterosexuals have messed up marriage and have yelling and anger and child abuse and violence, another wrong does not make it right. Both are wrong, but same sex marriage and homosexual and lesbian sex acts are ontologically wrong and against nature and harmful.

4. It is harmful to the homosexuals themselves – “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” – Romans 1:27.

5. The cumulative effect of all this will lead to every increasing stages of corruption, confusion, and total breakdown and the destruction of society and civilization, morals, and ethics. (not that that has not already begun, but this is accelerating it at an increasing rate of speed.)

All of my comments are still loving to the homosexual, even though he will probably not “feel” loved, in the context of truth and the gospel – we are commanded to be “speaking the truth in love” – to all – atheists, homosexuals, Muslims, Mormons, Roman Catholics.  (Ephesians 4:15)

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is still true and a good method for Christians to continue to hold to.

See also here, for an excellent sermon from John Piper on marriage and so called “same sex marriage” – “Let Marriage Be Held in Honor”. 

Also, see here for some astute reflections on the debate between Douglas Wilson and Andrew Sullivan.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Homosexuality. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Negative Effects of so called “same sex marriage” – just a few off the top of my head

  1. James Bradshaw says:

    Most of your objections are religious ones.

    Sorry, but they just don’t hold water in a constitutional republic such as ours or a court of law. Despite what is I’m sure your firm belief that only “real Christians” go to Heaven and that everyone else is “doomed”, our federal government not only allows but sanctions other faiths such as Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism and Buddhism via the granting of tax exemptions. Further, people are protected from discrimination for their *freely chosen* religious beliefs. We’re talking about a civil marriage here, not the blessing of a church.

    “It is harmful to the homosexuals themselves”

    Again … a spiritual assertion for which you have no proof or knowledge of outside an obtuse passage in your holy book of choice. Neither of us have STDs. We both live in an affluent part of town and are doing quite well, thank you. No harm here that I can see.

    In terms of other “perversions”, I might remind you that your objection to polygamy is a secular one, not a religious one. It can’t be, unless you wish to condemn the fathers of your own tradition (men such as Abraham who had three wives, one of them his half-sister) for behavior which they . Allowing two men to marry doesn’t imply that the age of consent need change or that the numbers of participants need change. Your objections are weak.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thanks James for your comment.

      Sorry, but they just don’t hold water in a constitutional republic such as ours or a court of law.

      why not? You didn’t give any reasons for your statement.

      Is it because of “majority opinion” will rule? What if majority opinion in the future says it’s ok to murder in certain circumstances or ok to steal in certain circumstances; or ok to lie and deceive? You have no objective basis for what is right or wrong.

      I agree that Mormons and Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims are free to worship, etc. If one group believes that others will go to hell, that should not bother the other group, because they are free to have their own ideas about heaven and hell.

      Except for Islam, which believes in killing apostates, and prohibits evangelism, and executing adulterers and homosexuals, people should be free to believe in their particular doctrines of theology.

      As for your current status on “doing quite well”; truth and love compel me to let Scripture speak to your heart, if you are willing to listen:

      “Be sure your sin will find you out” – Numbers 32:23

      “whatever you sow, that will you reap” Galatians 6:6-7 – the consequences of sin most of the time are not immediate, but appear later. God is not mocked.

      But I do appreciate your reasonable tone. Please read my comments to Clare Flourish below – I have the same wish for you – for true joy and peace and that you come to know the true God, the creator, and the one who inspired the Bible and send His Son into the word to save sinners, like you and me.

      Yes, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon committed polygamy, but it was not right. God’s ideal was one man for one woman – Adam and Eve.

      Lord willing, I may comment on other stuff later.

  2. Lauren Bertrand says:

    This reads like a parody of anti-SSM arguments. I’ll admit I’m completely biased–I support SSM, and I think Genesis is nothing more than an allegory–but at least on Denny Burk’s website we see thoughtful political and theological arguments against SSM that do more than trot out the tired “Adam and Steve” or “child abuse” cliches. But my favorite: “It’s harmful to the homosexuals themselves”–do you really expect to win hearts and minds (not just the gays but their friends and family members) when you’re that patronizing? I don’t think your intentions are any more malicious than most, but I recommend you to keep reading Denny Burk or Christianity Today and quit while you’re ahead. Or at least to wait until you’ve read a whole lot more arguments out there.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thanks Lauren for your comments.

      It was not meant to be a parody, but serious and sincere. It maybe old and tired and worn out – but truth never changes. Read Matthew 19 – Jesus quoted from Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 as if they are totally true and historical and objective principles for all time for marriage. Jesus is pure love and pure truth; and He affirmed the truth of the Old Testament.

      On “winning hearts and minds” – you may be right – my message may never win any one’s heart or mind. They are just words and simple argumentation based on the Bible, which I believe to be truth. ( John 17:17; Psalm 119)

      Only the Spirit of God can take words of truth and work on the inside of a person’s heart and mind to convince them of any arguments. (see I Corinthians chapters 1 and 2) I don’t have the power of persuasion or argumentation in mere human words and I am nothing great. You are probably right that the saying, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is old and you and many others say it is “tired”; but truth never changes. I believe that Genesis chapters 1-3 are truth and are a foundation for how we are to understand society, creation, relationships, marriage, God’s authority and power and that He is creator; and chapter 3 explains to us when sin started and the nature of the temptation of the devil and the rebellion of man and woman in their disobedience.

      Denny Burk is one of my favorite blogs and he is much better than I am at articulating the issues; so I agree with you on that.

      One of the reasons I wrote what I wrote is that I have noticed that Conservative, Bible-believing Christians are afraid to repeat the “same old truth” any more. Truth never changes. 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

      I hope you will read what I wrote to Jim above and especially Clare below and take the same basic message and that I also wish you the true peace that comes from knowing Jesus Christ personally. See Matthew 11:28-30 and John 14:27 and Romans chapters 1-5.

  3. Tell me, how do you get on with stoning people? There is lots of gravel on people’s front drives, but the stones are too small to have much effect. You really need stones the size of at least a plum, ideally an orange. Where do you get them from?

    I am trans, myself. No-one I meet seems confused by that. Live and let live, they say. Thank God.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Hi Clare,
      Thanks for your comments. I don’t wish you any harm; and I don’t believe that the Old Testament laws prescribing stoning people for certain crimes are valid anymore.

      Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Theocratic Israel in Matthew 21:43-45 and there is no more theocratic nation in that sense ever since that time. That is why there is a “new covenant” and a “new testament”, of God’s people in all nations and cultures. (see Revelation 5:9; 7:9; Colossians 3:9-10; Galatians 3:28) So, no, I don’t agree with stoning. Please read the New Testament and you will see the live and character of Jesus Christ, and His love for sinners and His offer of forgiveness through repentance and faith in Him. He says that you must realize you are a sinner and repent of your sins and turn from them and trust in Christ and all that He is in order to be saved from your sins and the justice of God that will be poured out in hell. (see Mark 1:15; Matthew 5:21-28) Christ took the justice of God against sin on the cross and rose from the dead.

      There is an ancient tradition of Jesus that came into the text of the gospel of John, chapter 8:1-11 – you may have heard of it – when the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus into judging an adulterous woman for stoning; but they only brought the woman before Him. They didn’t bring the man, so it was an unjust trial, as in adultery, it takes two, obviously. Jesus said, “Whoever is without sin, throw the first stone.” No one did because no one is without sin. But Jesus did not say about her adultery, “live and let live”. Rather Jesus said, “go and sin no more.”

      I am not any better than you as a person. You are human and I am human. I am a sinner also. I struggled, and still do sometimes, with anger, gluttony, pride, lust, as much as any normal man. But Christ saved me by His grace and His work of redemption. I honestly wish the same forgiveness, true peace, true love, true joy, and eternal life for you.

      I will confess that it is difficult for me to understand anyone who was born a man with a male body and male chromosomes to desire to have a sex-change. It seems to me, honestly, that this is a kind of rebellion against God and against the way He made you.

      You wrote, “thank God”. I hope you may search out who the true God really is; the God who inspired the Scriptures (The Bible) and sent His Son into the world to redeem sinners, like me and you.

      God is so loving that He does not approve of whatever we want, like a spoiled child who wants his or her way and / or all the toys or all the candy. Discipline is good and true; and honesty and truth is right. A parent who says, “no, you cannot have that or do that” is a good and loving parent.

      “Live and let live” means “let everybody do whatever they want they to do.” Well, that just doesn’t work in an absolute sense. That leads to anarchy. People have deep desires down in their hearts for their own way and their own selfish pleasures – and coveting other people’s property, wives, husband’s is wrong. Then there is stealing, and there is murder; and lying. These things are all wrong. If you agree that stealing other people’s property and murder is wrong, what objective basis do you have for that?

      Anyway, I wish you the peace that only Jesus Christ can give you. See John 14:27 and Matthew 11:28-30

  4. James Bradshaw says:

    One other thing: I find one valid concern of those who oppose same-sex marriage to be the impact on their religious liberties and freedom of conscience. I think it’s important to at least try to accommodate these things: after all, we allow people to avoid military conscription if they can show that they have had a consistent and conscientious objection to war and violence and such.
    I generally oppose using the power of law to force people into positive actions that may violate their deeply held beliefs. (The law can, however, justly restrict those actions when they may infringe on the rights of others)

    In the case of gay marriage, I’m not sure where I see this applies, though (unless we were insisting that people can *only* marry someone of the same sex — which no one is suggesting, I can assure you).

    County clerks issuing marriage licenses are not complicit in doing anything other than granting a civil contract to a couple who happens to be gay. They are not endorsing the relationship itself any more than if they were notarizing a power-of-attorney or a will for a gay couple. They are not requiring a church to perform a same-sex ceremony. What guilt is being imposed upon that person? What sin are they complicit in, exactly? I don’t see it. Further, if these clerks were that concerned about granting marriage licenses, I must wonder if they bother asking heterosexual couples about previous marriages or their faiths (given the Bible’s condemnation of divorce and remarriage as well as interfaith couplings). I’m thinking not.

    When it comes to small business owners, personally I would NOT sue to force the provision of their services. Not only does it pretty much guarantee shoddy service, but it’s certainly not going to win anyone’s mind on the matter. People generally don’t appreciate being taken to court. That’s just my approach, however.

    • Ken Temple says:

      I sincerely appreciate what you say here, James. Most of it I agree with.

      The problem is that many others (unlike you) are suing and seeking to force businesses like wedding planners, caterers, cake shops, photographers, etc. to comply to their wishes or they are working to get government to try and enforce these rules; applying them in the same way to the civil rights principles of the 1960s. It’s coming up in the news more and more all the time.

      And this one on the slippery slope of the redefinition of marriage is important:
      http://www.dennyburk.com/the-slippery-slope-and-the-definition-of-marriage/

  5. James Bradshaw says:

    Ken writes: “why not? You didn’t give any reasons for your statement.”

    What I’m saying is that legislation arising out of religious ideals can be struck down if those laws infringe on the higher law of the constitution in our nation. You can’t criminalize the practice of Catholicism or Mormonism just because you find those faiths to be idolatrous or offensive to God. You can no longer ban the sale of contraception to married couples or anyone else because you believe that its use is a sin. Supreme Court rulings have made it increasingly difficult to legislate matters of private morality: Lawrence v Texas struck down sodomy laws, for example.

    That’s not to say that our nation’s Constitution and legal framework is devoid of any moral frame of reference whatsoever. It’s just that its priorities and emphasis are not primarily religious ones.

    Roger Pilon (formerly of the Reagan administration) wrote an excellent article on the purpose and limits of government, in which he writes:

    “It is especially important to note that the Founders couched their moral vision in the language of rights, not in the language of virtue or values or any other moral concept.”

    Constitutionality is a difficult concept (hence the need for dedicated scholars and judges). Nevertheless, it seems to have proven a very useful and beneficial means of governing. If you look throughout the arc of history at people’s attempts to establish theocratic guidelines for governing, it usually ends in tyranny, whether it’s Calvin’s Protestant Geneva or Ferdinand’s Catholic Spain.

  6. Ken Temple says:

    All legislation of morality came from religious/spiritual values originally. Like the 10 commandments as from God and that is where all civilizations get their morality from, basically. Without God as creator and judge, you don’t know that murder or stealing or lying or adultery is wrong. Homosexuals are free to do their acts in the privacy of their own homes. I still say you hurt yourself and it is a rebellion against God and the nature that God created. But you could do your homosexual acts and live together, etc. and even will your estate to your partner and create legal contracts; but it is not marriage and never will be. Also, it is the “gay agenda” that is forcing everything into the public and into our faces through media, movies, TV, etc. and government actions. I remember seeing a clip of the gay-character on the TV show with Debra Messing ( I cannot remember the name of the TV show right now; that’s weird) – he said something like, “We gays have the constitutional right to lust after another man and whistle and hoot at him.” That is weird that the TV show has an agenda to call that a government protected right.

    We are not the ones who want government in our bedrooms – it is actually the whole “Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Bi-sexual” and with that “Questioning” and “man-boy lover associations” and polygamy advocates (Mormon groups, Islamic groups, other groups, cults), and potentially bestiality advocates that are seeking to force the government to approve of their bedroom activities.

    James wrote:
    What I’m saying is that legislation arising out of religious ideals can be struck down if those laws infringe on the higher law of the constitution in our nation.

    That murder is wrong and stealing is wrong is from God (your “religious ideal”); and you have no basis, say, from stopping a future person like a Hitler gaining power by stealth and start to kill Jews or Gypsies, etc.

    You can’t criminalize the practice of Catholicism or Mormonism just because you find those faiths to be idolatrous or offensive to God.

    I agree with you on that – that is one of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – Maryland (the land of the virgin Mary) was one of the original colonies/states and chose Roman Catholicism as its state religion. But the Federal government could not back one denomination over another one. But many states had a religious government under the umbrella of freedom from the Federal government in choosing one over the other. That was the context of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists who were worried that the Anglican Church was going to persecute them. That was the context of Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation”.

    You can no longer ban the sale of contraception to married couples or anyone else because you believe that its use is a sin.

    That’s a Roman Catholic thing – I don’t see a problem with some non-abortive contraception methods for married couples. (one male, one female) So, I agree with that; but it should not be sold to minors or the unmarried, but I also don’t want government trying to enforce that.

    Supreme Court rulings have made it increasingly difficult to legislate matters of private morality: Lawrence v Texas struck down sodomy laws, for example.

    If the homosexuals would keep themselves in their homes and their thing private and stop trying to force the rest of us to think about what they do; and force the government (lack of enforcing DOMA laws and taking the issue of same sex marriage to the Supreme Court, etc. )and society to approve of them. (Obama administration forcing Louie Giglio to back out of the inaugural prayer; and his second term advocacy of it; etc. and the mayors of Chicago (Rahm Immanuel seems like a gangster and bully to me), Boston, LA against Chick – fil-A in their cities, etc. )

    That’s not to say that our nation’s Constitution and legal framework is devoid of any moral frame of reference whatsoever. It’s just that its priorities and emphasis are not primarily religious ones.

    Even though the Constitution does not invoke religion or God (But it does say “In the Year of Our Lord” – which meant “Jesus Christ”), the context within the Declaration of Independence was clearly some kind of Christian Deism with the history of Christian morality understood. Rights come from our creator – the 2 phrases
    “laws of nature and nature’s God” and
    “every man is endowed with certain inalienable rights, which are endowed by their creator” are clearly from the context of the basic Christianity from that day – although specifically more Deism leaning through the philosopher John Locke.

    Roger Pilon (formerly of the Reagan administration) wrote an excellent article on the purpose and limits of government, in which he writes:

    “It is especially important to note that the Founders couched their moral vision in the language of rights, not in the language of virtue or values or any other moral concept.”

    Not true; as those 2 phrases from the Declaration of Independence proves otherwise.

    Constitutionality is a difficult concept (hence the need for dedicated scholars and judges). Nevertheless, it seems to have proven a very useful and beneficial means of governing. If you look throughout the arc of history at people’s attempts to establish theocratic guidelines for governing, it usually ends in tyranny, whether it’s Calvin’s Protestant Geneva or Ferdinand’s Catholic Spain.

    I agree with that, but even Conservative Christians are not calling for “theocracy” etc. – I am pretty sure that all of the US founders would have agreed that homosexually is always wrong, at at the same time they did not approve of a theocracy like Calvin’s Geneva or Ferdinand’s Spain.

    Having a clear statement on what marriage is – like a Constitutional Amendment banning so called “gay marriage” is not a theocracy – is it just protecting public decency and the meaning of the word marriage and the children of future generations.

  7. Pingback: Application of the current issues on so called “gay marriage” with Bonhoeffer’s response to the Nazis and Civil Rights issues in the 50s and 60′s | apologeticsandagape

  8. anonymous says:

    Hi,

    By your logic, minors+confusion=child abuse.

    My friends are minors. They just read your article.

    You confused them.

    By your logic, you just committed child abuse.

    Wait, another minor just read this, they’re confused too.

    Love one another, have an adventure, bye bye, then.

  9. Ken Temple says:

    Your logic is flawed. The only reasons a minor would be confused by this is they are either too young to understand it; or they have already been corrupted by a parent or a system of teaching that has trained them a wrong way of thinking about creation and gender and how God made them. (and denying that God exists; atheism; naturalistic materialism; or pagan worldview – that matter is able to be manipulated and controlled by humans.)

    But you don’t seem serious or sincere, since you are “anonymous” and your last statement about “love one another” and “bye, bye”, has a pejorative and mocking attitude in it.

    If you see this, in order to have a rational discussion, you have to explain how and why this argumentation would confuse a minor. If they are already taught that gender is how one feels (rather than the way they were created by God – body and chromosomes); and that they can change their sex by hormone therapy and plastic surgery; or that they are born with same sex attractions and that makes it ok; or that they were born in the wrong body, then those paradigms are the wrong thinking that has caused the confusion.

    • Anonymouse says:

      I’m sorry and do consent that the bye bye was a poorly chosen phrase to end my statement. However, I have to disagree with your disapproval of my using the phrase of love one another. It says in the John 13: 34-35:
      “34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
      35: By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

      I am a raised Christain. I am a god-fearing man. My friends and I are seniors in high school and are old enough to comprehend your statements. Our problem occured when we tried to examine your arguments for use in an essay we are writing for our college level English class.

      Now, I just happen to be the one who is typing the response, but in the words of my friend, who is only still a minor where I am no longer considered a minor by the state, says this in her defense of the statement that,

      “so called same sex marriage, if that couple also adopts a child or children, is confusing to the children and it is by nature child abuse, no matter how “nice” or “kind” or “loving” the homosexual couple is.”

      “I just don’t understand how homosexual parents causes confusion from a non-religious point of view,” she pauses. “Coming from a very religious childhood, I was raised being taught that God wanted people to be happy, no matter what that meant.”

      Now, I may just be an adult that still has dependent status, but I find difficulty in accepting that single paragraph more than all the others, including the paragraph in which you place my religion as flawed. I can accept that. It is just something my faith has to deal with. Yet my problem still stands.

      homosexual parents+children=confusion

      confusion+children=child abuse

      I believe that I have, on behalf of my fellow students, expressed the confusion we felt upon reading that paragraph. Thus, we are now parting ways until the next response. To quote a famous celebrity.

      “Be kind to one another.”

      • Ken Temple says:

        Thanks for coming here again and reading and making another comment; and I sincerely appreciate your recognition of the tone of the “bye, bye” comment.

        Jesus’ command to love one another is true and I believe that; but sometimes it is most loving thing to be courageous and honest with others and tell them respectfully, “you are wrong”; and to discipline a child who is doing something wrong is by definition love from the parent. So, it is loving to rebuke and correct sometimes. Jesus Himself said, “Those I love, I rebuke. Be zealous therefore, and repent.” Revelation 3:19

        You wrote, quoting your friend:
        “I just don’t understand how homosexual parents causes confusion from a non-religious point of view,” she pauses. “Coming from a very religious childhood, I was raised being taught that God wanted people to be happy, no matter what that meant.”

        It (so called “same sex marriage” and adoption of children by homosexuals) by nature causes confusion because the child knows, when he is old enough, that he came from a union of “one male and one female”. When they start school and see other kids have one mommy and one daddy; they are confused. Rosie O’donnell said to her child who asked her about that, “because mommy likes women” (not men) – so it is a form of self-ishness on Rosie’s part – her sexual desires were put forward as more important than the psychological health of her child.

        The internal confusion comse from trying to reconcile the fact of sex and biology with what was presented to him or her for several years. The key phrase there is “from a non-religious point of view”. But you also added God back into the situation after trying “to get rid of God” in the first statement.

        You don’t understand because you are approaching it from a non-religious point of view or, in other words, from an atheist/skeptic point of view, which is also wrong at root. There is really no such thing as “a non-religious point of view” ultimately; because it is a denial of reality. It is an attempt to “supress the truth” and “push down conscience” and “stiffle the knowledge of God within you” (Romans 1:18-21; 2:13-16; Psalm 19:1) Everyone knows deep down that God exists, and since God does exist, there is an objective moral -ethical standard of right and wrong and that means that the soul exists, and conscience exists, and that there will be a judgement day after death. (Hebrews 9:27 – “it is appointed for mankind once to die, then comes the judgement”)

        Unless one repents of their rebellion against God, that judgment day will be “bad news”. The good news (gospel) is that Christ offers new life and forgiveness of sins by repentance and faith in Him and all that He is; and in His atoning death on the cross and His resurrection. Jesus said, “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15) (see also Romans 3:9-23 (that all are sinners and hopeless and all need a Savior from sin); Romans 3:24-26 (faith in the atoning death of Christ); and Romans 10:9-10 (submission to Christ as Lord and faith in His resurrection)

        If God wants all people to be happy “according to their own desires” (another way of saying, “whatever that meant”), why do people not find happiness when they pursue pleasures their whole lives trying to run from God? There are many examples, but one that comes to mind is Freddy Mercury, the lead singer for the rock group, Queen, who died of AIDS and admitted he pursued every physcial pleasure and desire he wanted and never found happiness.

        George Harrison of the Beatles also admitted there was nothing else after all the fame and money and women that the Beatles had and that was one of the motivations for him going into Hinduism and Hare Krishna – (although that is a false religion; it shows he realized the “pursuit of happiness” is not the same as the pursuit of pleasure or his own definition of happiness. He sought for something spiritual higher than himself; although his disillusionment with Roman Catholicism and English / western hypocrisy kept him from investigating true Christianity in the Bible and better churches that followed the bible. The book of Ecclesiastes is about Solomon’s experiment with trying to find happiness in sexual pleasure, multiple wives, money, fame, laughter, etc. – He realized it was all vain and empty and had to repent at the end.

        Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 –
        13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”

        God defines what true happiness / true joy is – knowing Him and glorifying Him and enjoying a right relationship with the creator. You cannot make up your own rules or happiness.
        I encourage you to read this by John Piper, called “The Quest for Joy” and he does write, “Did you know that commands us to seek our happiness?” (but he would not agree with your qualification, “no matter what that meant” . No. God defines what true happiness and true happiness is.

        http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/quest-for-joy

        “Be kind to another” is also another Biblical command and along with the command “to love your neighbor as yourself”, I sincerely believe that that is exactly what I am seeking to do by telling you about the gospel of Christ and the right way to think about these issues.

Comments are closed.