Ideology is the problem in both Black terrorism and Muslim terrorism

In the same way that some Muslim clerics bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against western countries so too President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against the police officers of this nation.

My heart goes out to the families of the police officers who lost their lives today in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. But just as Islamic terrorism against western nations will not stop until we attack the sources of its inspiration so too Black terrorism against police will not stop until we remove the sources of its inspiration.

And please do not think I am advocating for any violence against our President or black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jackson.  By “remove” I mean we need to shame these men and these groups publically for the violence they have been inspiring for many years against police.

For decades characters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have fomented black hatred of police.  The problem in their view was not that blacks commit crimes at vastly larger rate in proportion to their population – the problem was police profiling.  Then our nation elected its first black president and instead of focusing on the problems in the black community that cause crime (like the breakdown of the family) this President chose to focus on police profiling. This President has directly fomented violence against police by giving credence to the falsehoods of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter.

We must attack the ideologies that inspire violence

In both Islamic terrorism and now in recent Black terrorism we must realize the enemy is an ideology. We cannot stop “lone wolfs” or small groups of blacks or Muslims who want to strike fear in the population at large or police in particular.  What we must do is attack the ideology that inspires these people to do the heinous things that they are doing.

Here are five things we can do to fight this propaganda war to destroy the sources of inspiration for these evil acts:

  1. Any groups which promote violent acts to terrorize citizens or police must be hunted down and brought to justice.
  2. Any websites that promote terrorism toward citizens or police must be shut down or we need target them with cyber warfare.
  3. Even groups like Black Lives Matter that do not directly promote violence but whose ideologies are indirectly inspiring terrorist acts against citizens or police must be defunded and called out as inspirations for these acts.
  4. We also need to shout from the roof tops and put in perspective the statistical facts for black citizens about the hugely disproportionate amount crime which comes out of the black community which makes race a factor in crime profiling.
  5. We need to help the black community redirect its anger and frustration with police profiling back at the problems within its own community including the fact that 90% of blacks in this country are killed by other blacks.

Black anger needs to be directed inward

The last point I just made is about the need to help blacks redirect their anger and frustration with the police back at the problems in their own community. I recently wrote a post entitled “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?” in which I detailed the fact that while blacks only make up 13% of the population of the United States they are responsible for more than 50 percent of murders and robberies as well as 40 percent of cop killings.

I had responses from many black people telling me that they were tired of being profiled such as being followed in stores or being pulled over by police without what they believed to be proper cause. I understand that American blacks may be frustrated by these types of things in the same way American Muslims may be bothered for being profiled.

But American Blacks and American Muslims both need to do the same thing.  They need to direct their anger and frustration inward at their own communities and those in their communities that are the CAUSE for this profiling.

The need to work in their own communities doing these four things I mentioned in my article “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?

  1. Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit
  2. Discourage dependence on government
  3. Get blacks back into church
  4. Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime

As far as profiling goes these three things MUST be accepted:

Profiling does not cause crime, crime causes profiling.

Profiling does not cause terrorism, terrorism causes profiling.

Profiling is not racism or bigotry but rather it is a common sense approach to crime and terrorism.

Conclusion

We need a president that instead of saying we have a “police problem” needs to say we have a “crime problem in the black community”.  The fact is that 99% of cops do their job and are not bad apples.  We cannot have a President and groups like Black Lives Matter who whip up an entire racial community against the 1% of bad apples among police to the point where police officers are literally being assassinated.

Photo Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Lives_Matter_protest.jpg

How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?

50 percent of all murders and manslaughters ,52 percent of all robberies and 40 percent of cop killings are committed by blacks even though blacks only make up 13 percent of the population of the United States.  How could we blame any police officer for having a bias toward blacks under these conditions?

I am sure that most police officers whether they are black, white, asian or another race could confirm that these statistics are not just numbers – this is what they face on a daily basis as they attempt to do their job in protecting our communities as well as protecting themselves so that they can make it home safely to their families each night.

I was watching the Kelly File with Meghan Kelly on Fox last Thursday night and they were covering the relatively peaceful protest of two black men that were killed by police officers early in the week.   I will never forget as the camera caught people running from something only to reveal two police officers laying dead on the ground and Meghan Kelly told them to turn the camera away.  Those images will be seared in my mind for the rest of my life.

It is not about a skin color, it is about a culture

It is about a culture where 67% percent of its children are born to single mothers.  It is about a culture that while being only 13 percent of the population – it produces 50 percent of all murders and manslaughters in the United States.

“Just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should,” Lemon said. “Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/

This “fatherless” black culture has directly resulted in these staggering crime rates:

Even though blacks only account for roughly 13 percent of the population they account for these percentages of crimes in United States:

50 percent of all murders and manslaughters

52 percent of all robberies

33 percent of all aggravated assaults

32 percent of all forcible rapes

So what this tells us is that we have a culture that represents a small percentage of our population, but disproportionately represents a very high percentage of our crime.

“Criminologists we contacted also told us that those absolute figures — when used correctly —  tell only half the story. When talking about risks to society, it is equally important to provide the population-based rate. When we do that, the threat of violent crimes posed by blacks looks larger than that of whites.”

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/02/sally-kohn/sally-kohn-white-men-69-percent-arrested-violent/

Economics are not an excuse for high black crime rates

The usual response from when many American black culture leaders(including Black Lives Matter leaders) are confronted with these statistics is that “this is all about economics”.  If black people just made more money all of these problems would go away – or so we are told.

These crime rates by race and income below prove that the “economics” argument is a faulty answer to problem of disproportionately high rates of crimes among blacks:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/99v05n3/9909levi.pdf

Slavery and past injustices are not an excuse either for high black crime rates

In my job as a software developer I have worked with people from all over the world. Among those people were blacks from Europe and Africa. I can tell you first hand that blacks from those areas of the world and blacks from America often have very different ways of seeing the world. The biggest difference between American blacks and blacks from other parts of the world is that most American blacks see themselves as victims.  Most blacks from other parts of the world simply see themselves as human beings with a certain skin color and that is it.

Were blacks victimized by whites in America in the past? Absolutely.  I have written about the evils the system of slavery that was practiced in the United States:

“On the other hand, the slavery in practice in America was completely different than the slavery that was allowed by the Bible. Chains were a very a common occurrence with slavery in America. It was based on the false ideology that one race was less human than others and they could be enslaved if for no other reason than their race…

Besides American slavery being based on race – it massively failed the two tests of Biblical Slavery that I mentioned above. Africans were kidnapped from their homes. They were treated worse than animals and loaded on to ships without proper food, clothing and shelter. Many Africans died while on Ships coming to America. Many African women were raped by their owners, instead being given the full status of wives. They were often physically abused and even sometimes murdered. But because they were not considered fully human, no punishments were given.”

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/07/10/why-christians-shouldnt-be-ashamed-of-slavery-in-the-bible/

My point in that post was that while Christians do not have to be ashamed of the slavery that God allowed Israel as a theocracy to practice we should be ashamed of the slavery that America practiced in its earlier days. My larger point though as it relates to this post is that of course we should fully acknowledge as Christians and as Americans the grave injustices committed against blacks in nation’s past.

We should also acknowledge that even after blacks were freed from slavery in America they were often treated unfairly by both government officials and private businesses. This unfair treatment lead to the Civil Rights movement lead by men such as Martin Luther King.

But it is a mistake for any black person today to blame their family, economic or criminal issues past wrongs of the American culture toward blacks. In the decades that followed the civil rights movement the American culture has basically bent over backwards to help blacks in America.

The Liberals War on Poverty actually helped cause the fatherless problem in the black culture

In his article entitled “7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood” author Nick Chiles writes:

“Welfare programs created disincentives for couples to get married because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income — a reduction of benefits by an average of 10 percent to 20 percent of their total income. Because so many of the other programs low-income women rely on — such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and public day care — also carry a means test, single mothers are cut off from a wide range of government services if they decide to marry and subsequently raise their income. Over time, for many Black women in low-income neighborhoods, they see the father of their child(ren) as a less reliable breadwinner and partner than the federal government.”

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/12/24/ways-war-poverty-destroyed-black-fatherhood/

But can we blame the fatherless family’s epidemic completely on welfare programs that dis-incentivized marriage? The answer is no.  Ultimately black men and women made their own decision based on economic reasons to leave one of God’s greatest institutions in the dust bin. Black women decided they did not need black men anymore to have a family and black men decided they did not need marriage.

So what does this all have to do with the Dallas shootings?

The root causes of heinous murder of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of seven others has been falsely attributed anger in the black community over the police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota.

The problem is NOT unjust shootings of blacks by police officers.  The problem is rampant out of control crime and a blatant lack of respect in the black community for themselves and for law enforcement officials.

My father always taught me from a very young age to respect my authorities.  I was taught to respect my parents, my pastor, my teachers and also police officers. I was told if a police officer pulled me over to do everything he said and answer him with “yes sir and no sir”.

I actually was arrested as a young man when I was 17 years old. I had many speeding tickets and had an address change and did not receive a notice to retake drivers training.  Because I did not respond to the notice my license was suspended without my knowledge. I was pulled over for speeding and then the officer asked me to get of car and he asked to me to put my hands behind my back and he placed me under arrest.  I submitted respectfully to the officer as my father taught me to do even though I did not understand at the time what was happening.

Today many blacks have horrible and disrespectful attitudes towards police when they are pulled over.  Even if they think the reason is unfair – two wrongs never make a right.  You let the police officer do what he thinks he needs to do and if you disagree you can have your day in court. That is how our system works.

Because blacks often resist arrest bad things happen. That is just the truth of the matter. Many black men might not have lost their lives or been injured by police if they would have respectfully submitted to the police officer’s authority.

Perhaps these two black men in Louisiana and Minnesota were killed unjustly.  But right now we don’t know the whole story.  Could the one man have been resisting arrest? Could the other have been moving his hands around when the officer told him to keep his hands where he could see them? We will find out soon enough.

The ugly truth that the black community and black culture must come to grips with is that even if those two shootings were not justified – Police officers have every right to have a bias toward blacks based on the crime statistics I showed previously as well as the statistics offered in this article from the Wall Street Journal:

“Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Some may find evidence of police bias in the fact that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, compared with their 13% representation in the national population. But as residents of poor black neighborhoods know too well, violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there.

Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myths-of-black-lives-matter-1468087453

How can we blame police officers who may have some bias toward blacks when they constantly hear over the police radio “suspect is black male….”

How can we blame police officers for having even unconscious bias toward blacks in suspicious situations when 40% of cop killers are black even though they only make up 13% of the population?

How can we scream “racist” toward police officers who day in and day out see the utter disrespect that blacks show toward themselves and toward law enforcement officers?

What is the solution to this crisis that we face with the black community and conflicts with police officers?

There are two long term solutions to help reduce crime in the black community.

Long Term Solution 1# – Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

I Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)

We need to support ministries and initiatives that encourage abstinence and marriage in the black community. My church supports black ministers that act almost as missionaries to inner cities to do just this.  By encouraging strong families with father’s present to love, teach and discipline their children we will help to bring about a new generation of black men that will have greater respect for themselves and for their authorities (parents, teachers, and police officers).

Long Term Solution 2# – Discourage dependence on government

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

We need to discourage dependence on government and instead encourage self-reliance and this applies not only to the black community but to all races in America.  People need to learn the value of working hard for their own money and not expect government handouts.  Blacks, whites and all races need to learn to be content even if they are poorer.

But while the longer term solutions are being implemented we must face the realities of today with broken families and high crime rates in the black community.

Below are two short term solutions that should be implemented now.

Short Term Solution 1# – Get blacks back into church

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Hebrews 10:25 (KJV)

Even if blacks come from broken homes there are solutions we can try to help in the short term. I don’t have the stats handy but I am sure they out there.  I have read before that blacks that are raised in church and faithfully attend church even with single mothers have a much lower chance of getting into crime and other types of trouble.  As Christians we need to encourage our black neighbors to get back to church. The Church I attend while being primarily white does have blacks as well and we encourage all races to attend our church.  This is the way all churches should be.

Ultimately we want to see blacks, as we do all people, come to Christ.   A black man who has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in his heart and wants to serve God is going to be far less likely to get into crime than a black man without Christ.  He is going to want to get married and raise his family in a way that honors God.

Short Term Solution #2 – Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Romans 13:2-4 (KJV)

I don’t care if you are white, black, Hispanic or Asian.  If a police officer tells you to do something – you do it. If he asks you a question – you answer it. If he tell you to keep your hands where he can see them – you do it.  If he arrests you – you allow him to do that.  If you feel you were mistreated – save it for the judge.  If “stop and frisk” measures reduce crime in any city – than we need to support these measures.  And the most important thing is – we need to ALWAYS given our police officers the benefit of the doubt in any use of force situation.  They risk their lives day in and day out for our safety as a culture and we owe them that respect and appreciation for what they do.

Conclusion

The black community does not have an economic problem – it has a family problem and it has a respect problem as a result of breakdown of the family.

I pray that God will be with the families of the five police officers that were killed and the seven others that were wounded by this mad man.

I also pray that our nation and especially the black community will wake up to the fact that the problem is not with police officers – but it is with the black community itself.  The black community needs to look inward and do some serious self-reflecting.

As whites and other races, we cannot go in and fix the black community.  All we can do is support black leaders who want to do the things I mentioned above whether it is financially supporting their ministries or just offering them moral support and of course keeping them in our prayers.

The American Idol of Equality

The Bible does not support the modern American concept of equality. In fact in some ways American ideas about equality are completely at odds with the Bible. But the unfortunate truth is that over the past century most American Christians have willing laid down their Biblical faith on the altar of their new god – the god of equality.

It is a sad fact that in 2016 more Americans believe in gender equality than believe in God. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans believe in God while another Pew survey reveals that 91 percent of Americans believe in advancing the social equality of women.

“Pew Research Center surveys are not the only ones that have found a long-term decline in the overall share of Americans who say they believe in God. For example, 86% of Americans said in a 2014 Gallup poll they believed in God or a universal spirit, down from 96% in 1994 and the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/americans-faith-in-god-may-be-eroding/

“…the highest levels of support for gender equality are found in Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Roughly nine-in-ten or more in these countries say gender equality is very important.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/strong-global-support-for-gender-equality-especially-among-women/

And it is not just gender equality.  Whether it be income equality, education equality, racial equality, sexual orientation equality, healthcare equality and host of other “equalities” it is undeniable that the American culture as well as the rest of western countries have bowed their knees to the god of equality.

How should Bible believing Christians react to our culture’s emphasis on these various equality ideologies?

When it comes to this issue of equality we have two choices as Christians.

We can let our beliefs about equality dictate our beliefs about the Bible

Sadly many professing Christians in America and around the western world have chosen this first approach to the subject of equality. While their beliefs in equality are absolute – their beliefs in the Bible as God’s perfect and inspired word are not. Any part of the Bible that contradicts with what their god of equality stands for are dismissed as “cultural” or “temporary” for Biblical times only. Others teach a false Gospel that Christ came not just to die on the cross but to bring about social equality.

We can let our beliefs about the Bible dictate our beliefs about equality

Fewer Christians today than at any point in the history of Christendom believe that the Bible stands as the inerrant Word of God. Yes as Bible believing Christians we understand that we are not under the civil laws, sacrificial laws, cleanliness laws, dietary laws and priestly laws that God gave to Israel as theocracy.  But God’s lasting moral law was enforced and strengthened under the new law of Christ in the form of the New Testament.

We believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he said this about his writings as well as those of the other Apostles:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

I Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

We know that the New Testament stands as the final revelation of God built upon the moral law of the Old Testament.  When accept this fact, then we will accept that the New Testament not only left certain inequalities intact (like slavery) but it also enshrined and reinforced other inequalities such as the social inequality of men and women.  Any honest reading of the New Testament reveals this to be true.

Now that we have established that Bible believing Christians must view the subject of equality through the lenses of the Scriptures we will now look at some hot button areas of equality in American culture today.

What does the Bible say about racial and gender equality?

The Bible teaches that all human beings, men and women and people of all races are equally human.

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

All human beings regardless of their gender or race are equally as human as the first man Adam was and we ought never to regard a person as being less than human because they are a certain gender or race.

The Bible teaches not only the equality of our common humanity but also our spiritual equality as believers in Christ regardless of race, creed or gender:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Does the Bible support the concept of equal justice before the law?

Yes it does. The Bible teaches that all people are to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law:

“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.”

Deuteronomy 16:19(NASB)

So if a rich man commits a crime and poor man commits a crime they both should face the same justice. If a man commits a crime or a woman commits a crime they should face they justice.  If a black man commits a crime or white man commits a crime they should face the same justice.

What does the Bible say about income equality?

The Bible talks about workers being paid the wages they agreed to be paid but it does not say workers or people in general must be paid equally.  An employer and an employee agree to a wage.  But that employer does not have pay more than the agreed wage because he pays other employees more.

In one of Christ’s parables he talks about a land owner who needs his fields harvested quickly in Matthew 20:1-15. The land owner goes out into the town looking for workers to agree to work in his field that day.  He starts off early in the morning finding some workers and they agree to work for a denarius which was the typical wage for a 10 hour work for field workers.

But he needed more workers for his fields so throughout the day and even towards the end of the day the land owner kept going out and getting workers.

At the end of the day he paid all his workers the same wage for that day even though some had only worked the last few hours of the day while others had worked all day long.  This was the response of the first workers he hired who agree to their wage of a denarius:

“10 When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’”

Matthew 20:10-15(NASB)

Some have tried to misinterpret this story as teaching that workers must all be paid the same when clearly that is not the case. This story from Christ is actually a powerful example of the natural private property rights that God has given to mankind. Notice what the landowner says to the workers – “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”

The landowner by paying the men who worked only an hour the same as those who worked 10 hours was paying his workers unequally.  The men who worked at the end of the day got an entire day’s wages while those who worked all day got the same wage.

As Bible believing Christians we should NOT support “equal pay for equal work” laws as these laws violate the natural private property rights that God has given to man.

A business owner has the right to do what they will with their own property including determining the hourly wages of their employees. If a manager chooses to pay blonde people more money per hour than brown haired people or men more than women that is his right as Christ said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” We may not agree as workers with how our employers decide our wages but at the end of the day if we agreed to that wage we are not to be envious of another person making more money.

This is the complete opposite of how Americans are taught to view their employers.  We have people suing all the time for unequal pay and this is a violation of the private property rights of the owners of these companies.

On the larger issue of income equality Christ said this:

“7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.”

Mark 14:7 (NASB)

Both in the Old and New Testaments we are encouraged to help the poor.  But the fact is that there will ALWAYS be poor people and there will always be rich people and sometimes there will be those in between. But we will never eliminate poverty in this world.

The giving to the poor in the Old and New Testament was always a temporary thing. And in some cases the poor would have to work for their food.   A man’s giving to the poor was commanded by God and enforced by God – not the government of the nation of Israel.  They did not have tax collectors going around assessing people’s land and taking from them and redistributing to the poor. It was PRIVATE charitable giving, not government taxation and redistribution of wealth as we have in America and other western countries.

Also the giving to the poor was never meant to encourage laziness – in fact the Apostle Paul warns against church giving food to people who are able bodied and could work:

“10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:19 (KJV)

In the New Testament the specific formulas for charity given to Israel as a theocracy are done away with and giving was to be completely based on one’s free will:

“7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

There are many passages throughout the Scriptures that talk about the protection of private property.  In fact in many places in the Old Testament we see laws proscribing remedies for the violation of private property rights. Theft of private property was seen as a much more serious thing than we see it today.

“15 Thou shalt not steal…

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:15-17

Civil government is never granted the right to tax for income redistribution purposes.  To do so is tantamount to legalized theft. The poor are to be supported by private free will charity, not government confiscation of private property for the purposes of trying to bring about income equality.

Socialism and Communism are in direct contradiction with the natural private property rights God has given to man.

So here is the point about income inequality from a Biblical perspective.  The Bible clearly respects private property rights as well as the right of workers to be paid the wage they agreed upon. An owner of a company may pay his workers different wages that they have agreed to and they are not to be envious of what he pays their fellow employees.  The government does have the right to tax but this right should never cancel out a man’s private property rights.

Does the Bible support sexual orientation equality?

The Bible does NOT support the right of gays, lesbians and transgender people to engage in these lifestyles nor does it say that Christians cannot discriminate against these people in offering services to them(like florists, photographers, etc.).

The Bible clearly condemns these types of lifestyles as sinful:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

Does the Bible support healthcare equality?

I would refer you back up to the income inequality section. No the Bible does not require that we offer free healthcare to anyone any more than it requires us to guarantee free food and shelter to all.  Now should people, especially the wealthy donate to hospitals and help take care of the poor? Yes.

“17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good [a]works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.”

I Timothy 6:17-19 (NASB)

But again this should be of their own free will.  It should not be based on government confiscation of property and redistribution of wealth.

Does the Bible support education equality?

Again I would refer you back to the section on income inequality.  We do not have a God given right to other’s people’s money to pay for our education. As believers and followers of the Bible we value education.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:”

Proverbs 1:5 (KJV)

But let’s be honest that just like equality – education has become an idol in American society.

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

Ecclesiastes 12:12 (KJV)

We have thousands of young people believing they are entitled to a free college education when they are NOT.  In fact it can be shown that education standards have dropped while education costs have skyrocketed because of this philosophy that everyone must go to college.  Universities and colleges are flooded with people who should not be there. I have two words for you – it is called “skilled trades”.

Does the Bible support equal rights for all human beings?

No it does not.  Now you might say “Wait a minute! You just said in an earlier section that we are to regard all people regardless of race or gender as equally human – doesn’t that mean that if all people are equally human they should have equal rights?” The answer my friends is no.

Now we can grant equal rights in certain areas like we did with race and religion here.  The Bible does not forbid us from granting these types of equality.

But there was nothing unbiblical about the racial and ethnic quotas that the US Government had from 1790 to 1965 when racial and ethnic quotas were outlawed as considerations for allowing immigrants into the United States. A nation has the right to preserve its cultural, racial and ethnic makeup through controlling what persons may immigrate to its country.

But if Americans decided to place restrictions or stop immigration from certain countries as we are considering today because of the war with Islamic radicals this is not an immoral action by Biblical standards.

Now unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights in the area of gender rights Gods has placed firm restrictions on this regardless of what civil governments decide.

While American law may grant women equal rights with men – Biblical law does not.  And unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights God has not left the issue of gender rights open.

Woman are to submit to their fathers and then their husbands when they marry:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.”

Numbers 30:3-9 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in the Church

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

So yes our American society has granted women equal rights with their husbands – but God has not. Another way of putting this is – the American government over the last century as legalized women rebelling against their husbands.

Christian women in America are faced with the same choice that Eve, the first woman, faced in the Garden of Eden:

“1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which theLord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-4 (KJV)

Will you as a woman take the forbidden fruit? Will you try and be equal with your husband as Eve tried to be equal with God?

Will you take advantage of the sin your government condones and rebel against your husband’s authority or will you resist that temptation and follow God’s law?

Conclusion

While the Bible supports such concepts that all people are equally human and equal justice under the law it does not support the modern American philosophy of equality.

The philosophies of socialism, feminism and humanism which are all children of the philosophy of equality are also in direct contradiction with the Word of God.

We all have a choice to make – will we worship the god of equality or the God of the Bible?

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Matthew 4:10 (KJV)

See the articles below that are related to this subject of equality:

Biblical Human Rights vs American Human Rights

Does the Bible teach the concept of “Human Property”?

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible

Marine leaders appease feminists by removing ‘man’ from 19 job titles

Within a couple weeks of news revealing that women recruits had failed to meet Marine combat standards at an alarming 86 percent rate the Marine leadership has revealed that it will remove ‘man’ from 19 job titles to make the tiny percentage of women who can actually fill these roles more comfortable.

“In all, the Marine Corps plans to rename 19 of its military occupational specialties, or MOSs, as the result of a months-long review mandated by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. A service-wide message announcing the changes is expected to be published within the next few days…

“As we achieve full integration of the force … this is an opportunity to update the position titles and descriptions themselves to demonstrate through this language that women are included in these MOSs,” Mabus wrote in a January order to Commandant Gen. Robert Neller. “Please review the position titles throughout the Marine Corps and ensure that they are gender-integrated as well, removing ‘man’ from the titles.”

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/06/27/marines-remove-word-man-these-19-job-titles/86438594/

This is just another example of the political correctness in this country that has now gone to a level of insanity. Will we now call firemen – “fire persons” or policemen “police persons”?

Even the news of women failing to meet new combat standards was attempted to be softened.

Here is the Title of the article from Military.com:

“New Standards Weeding Out Both Male and Female Marine Combat Hopefuls”

The title of this article would give someone the false impression that these new standards for combat fitness are weeding out roughly equal numbers of men and women. But here is the truth about the ratio of men to women washing out:

“In the last five months, 6 out of 7 female recruits — and 40 out of about 1,500 male recruits — failed to pass the new regimen of pull-ups, ammunition-can lifts, a 3-mile run and combat maneuvers required to move on in training for combat jobs, according to the data.”

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/21/few-proud-physically-fit.html

Let’s be clear. There have always been men that have not met the high standards of the Marines. But there is absolutely NO comparison between 3 percent of men not meeting Marine combat standards and 86% percent of women not meeting Marine combat standards.

A more truthful headline would have been:

“86 percent of women recruits fail to meet Marine combat standards while only 3% percent of male recruits failed the same standards”

That is the TRUTH.

These numbers emphasize a truth that a small child could tell you. Women are not made for combat and women in general cannot compete with men in the physical arena. This is why we have separate sports for men and women.

Sorry ladies – when we go to war they don’t have a separate “boys’ team” and “girls’ team”.

When will we as a people stand up to this political correctness that is destroying our nation? When will we take a stand for truth in the midst of these lies that are forced upon us?

Some may be offended by “man” in the title of a military position. But you know what folks – you don’t have a Constitutional right to not be offended.

We as men, whether it be men in the military or outside the military need to stand firm against this wave of political correctness.

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

I Corinthians 16:13 (KJV)

Men don’t wallow in the face of women being offended. They stand firm and act like men. They do what is best for their nation, their families and their churches and they do not let feelings get in the way of doing what is right.  I pray God will reveal this truth to the next generation of young men.

The Brexit strikes a blow to globalization and is a victory for freedom

brexit

The UK approving the “Brexit”, its exit from EU, is one of the greatest blows to the globalization movement that has been occurring over the last half century. And make no mistake – it is just the beginning.  Lord willing, America will be the next to deal it is own crushing blow to the globalization movement by electing Donald Trump as President this coming November.

Two types of globalization groups

There are two types of globalization groups.

The first are Cultural Globalists.  These groups believe that we must attempt to minimize and unify cultural values across the world so that everyone has the same social values. In most cases the advocates are socialist and to a greater or less degree they believe in the government mandated and controlled redistribution of wealth throughout societies in an effort to eliminate economic inequality. In fact for this group inequality in all areas is their greatest enemy.

This group also seeks to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism throughout the world. In addition this group encourages abortion on demand services and it encourages women to rebel against their traditional roles as wives, mothers and homemakers.

Cultural Globalists have both atheists and religious people in their ranks joined in their common cause.  But the religious Cultural Globalists want to break down boundaries between religions in the same way that they want to break down borders between countries. Also for most religious Cultural Globalists, their religious views are made to fit their Cultural Globalist views. Another way of saying this is – their beliefs in things like social and economic equality trump any apparent contradictions the core tenants of their religion.

The second are Economic Globalists.  The Economic Globalist does not care about the cultural concerns of social and economic equality for people throughout the world.  The Economic Globalist cares about the economy of the world acting as one unit. While the greatest enemy of the Cultural Globalist is inequality for individuals (whether it be social or economic) the greatest enemy of the Economic Globalist is Protectionism.  They do not believe governments should take any actions to protect their economies but should simply allow various sectors of their national economies to rise and fall as the global market dictates.

Economic Globalists believe there should be absolutely no tariffs, import or export taxes by any nation in the world. Free trade, rather than fair trade is their goal. If a nation fails because too many of its business sectors failed then this is seen as no different than if a company failed because too many of its products fail.

Both of these Globalist groups are wrong.

Nations have a right to protect their cultures

Cultural Globalists have tried to cast Nationalists like Donald Trump and British and other European nationalists and Xenophobes and Racists.  But this is not about religion or race – it is about culture. Britain has a certain culture.  France has a certain culture.  Germany has its own unique culture.  America has its own unique culture. Each of these nations and every other nation in the world has the right to take steps to protect its culture.

Am I saying cultural change is always bad? Of course not.

I talk a lot on this blog about how American and to a great extent Western culture has changed for the bad and not for the good. I and many other conservative Christians would like to see our culture return to a different set of cultural values.

But there is a difference between pushing for cultural change from WITHIN and causing cultural change from WITHOUT. It is one thing for natural born citizens of a nation to push for cultural change and another for a massive influx of immigrants to push for cultural changes. Immigrants are supposed to assimilate themselves to the new nations that they enter.

When natural born citizens push for change on a large scale this could be classified as a revolution. But when immigrants push for change in the new nation they have entered this could rightly be classified as an invasion.

In the United States and in many European countries the natural born citizens of these nations feel as though their nations have been invaded because of the complete and utter unwillingness of the governments of these nations to regulate immigration and enforce immigration laws.

The people are saying to the governments of these nations including the United States government – “NO MORE”!!!

We are not against legal, controlled and limited immigration.  We are not racists. We simply believe that our governments should be more concerned about protecting the rights, economic interests and culture of their own people than the rights, economic interests and cultural concerns of immigrants coming into these nations.

Nations have a right to protect their economies

Nations have a right and a duty to protect their national economies by instituting protectionist policies. To be clear protection is not in contradiction with free markets and free trade WITHIN a national economy.  Free markets and free trade WITHIN a national economy work best – this has been proven time and time again throughout the world.   However free global trade has led to the devastation of various sectors of national economies.

Governments have a right to encourage and protect economic independence in all their key sectors to the best of that nation’s ability.  Whether it is in food production, natural resource production, energy source production, financial, technical and manufacturing nations have a right to seek to be as independent as possible in these various sectors.

Nations should only seek trade in areas where they lack certain resources or where the trade is beneficial to their economy and not detrimental to their economy.

Donald Trump spoke on the Historic protectionist positions of our founding fathers this last week:

“We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy…

This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs…

Our Founders understood this. One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.

Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/22/trump_we_got_here_because_we_switched_from_a_policy_of_americanism_to_a_policy_of_globalism.html

There was a time in the last century when America in keeping with the traditions of our founding fathers protected both its culture and its economy.  We need to return to those values.  That is why we need to vote for Donald Trump this coming November.

And just a note to my fellow conservative brothers who don’t like Trump.  Yes I voted for Trump in the primaries not because he was perfect or that I always agree with him.  But I voted for him because of his desire to return the historic traditions of our founding fathers specifically when it comes to protecting our economy and our culture.

But the primaries are over. Trump may not have been the candidate you wanted.  But make no mistake, if you vote for any other candidate than Donald Trump or if you do not vote at all then you are voting to hand our supreme court and the next several decades of judicial and political policy to the global cultural and economic folks.  It really is that simple.

As my history teacher in high school used to say – “When it comes to elections and politics, it is not always about being able to choose the best candidate – sometimes it is about choosing the lesser of two evils”.

As believers we have a right and duty to fight for the interests and well being of our families and our nation:

“And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” – Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

I encourage you all to consider this as we approach the November elections.

Are women who want to submit to and serve their husbands mentally ill?

“The normal love that a woman feels for a man was seen as some sort of mental illness, any desire to submit to the natural authority of a man within a marriage was seen as ‘oppressive patriarchy’. ” This is how Emma, a young student from Australia, described what was taught to her in a gender studies course at a university in Australia.

What Emma is describing is  a sad but true reality in universities and colleges across not just America, but also the entire western world. See the rest of her comment below.

Emma’s Story

I just wanted to say how glad I am to find this site.

The reason I am moved to write to you is that I probably come from a ‘strange’ background for many of the people here.  I am a single, 23 year old woman, studying for an undergraduate degree at a liberal University in Australia.  I even did a unit of study in ‘genders studies’ last year !

Although almost all the students were women my age or younger who were vaguely interested in questions of gender and feminism, a large minority of us felt like quitting the course as we were amazed at the anti-male nature of the course.  The normal love that a woman feels for a man was seen as some sort of mental illness, any desire to submit to the natural authority of a man within a marriage was seen as ‘oppressive patriarchy’.  Some of the tutors even went so far as to say that ‘every woman’ was ‘raped’ whenever she had sex with a man:  the reasoning was that as women are oppressed, women cannot meaningfully consent, and therefore any sex is rape.

The other women who felt like me were in a minority, but not as few as you might think.  We know that women want to serve their husbands – everything from cooking nice food to pleasing him sexually.  Some of us had had premarital sex (not everyone is perfect) but we wanted our future husbands to be submissive to the will of Our Father, just as we will submit to the will and guidance of our husbands.   I have read everything on this website (although I knew most of the quotes already) and my feeling is that you are a Bible-believing Christian or you are not.  If you do say you are a Bible-believing Christian – the Bible is pretty clear on women submitting to their husbands.  Otherwise, it is a permanent battle for power that makes both people unhappy.

I am not married and am not even engaged.  But when I do, it will be to a man who is obedient to Our Father, as I will worship our Father by being obedient to my husband.  In my experience the women I know who have done this have been the happiest women I have seen, and live fulfilling and wholesome lives.

Emma

Australia

My Response to Emma

You are proof that God has reserved for himself a faithful remnant of women who who desire to remain faithful to God’s Word.  It is not a matter of us being perfect, but it is a matter of us recognizing that he is perfect, his Word is perfect and his design of men and women is perfect.  It is sin that has corrupted God’s design.

God speaks of those who would call good(women submitting to and serving their husbands) evil and evil(women’s rebellion toward their husbands) good:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Also we need to realize that the attack on men and masculinity in our culture is an attack on God himself as God says that men are the image and glory of God:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The rebellion against man’s authority over women is an attack against God’s authority over all mankind because the relationship between a husband and wife is symbolic of the relationship between God and his people:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Just remember Emma that we are not to be conformed to the wicked pattern of this world but rather we are to measure our lives by God’s Word:

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 (KJV)

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

I pray God will give you the courage to continue to live according to his Word and his design and that you will be an example to the women around you.

 

Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible commands that wives are to submit to their husbands in “everything”.  Does “everything” include anal sex? Or does this fall under the exception clause to all earthly submission that “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29)?

Beyond submission – what if the woman wants anal sex? Is it ok for a Christian couple to engage in anal sex?

Some Christians would give a quick response of “No way – anal sex is sodomy and sodomy is condemned in the Bible!”

However the word “sodomy” never occurs in the Bible.  That is a word made up in the English language.  Most people today when they hear the word sodomy think of one of two things – homosexual acts especially between two or more men or anal sex.  But the definition of sodomy in English is broader than this and includes oral sex or anal sex even between a man and woman.

This is the definition of “sodomy”:

“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

The Roots of “Sodomy”

Now while “Sodomy” is never used in the Bible the roots for this English word can be seen in the story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19. Previously Abraham’s nephew Lot had moved with his family to the city of Sodom and Abraham had received angels from God that told him God would destroy Sodom for its wickedness.  Abraham asked for God to spare Lot and his family so the angels went there to get them.

The men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded that he would send out the two angels so they could have sex with them.

So Biblically speaking what would “Sodomy” be? If we look at Genesis 19 it is when one man forcibly has anal sex with another man.

What about the word “sodomite”?

The word “sodomite” is used in these passages of the King James translation of the Bible:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 23:17(KJV)

“And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.”

1 Kings 14:24 (KJV)

“And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

1 Kings 15:12 (KJV)

“And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

1 Kings 22:46 (KJV)

“And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

2 Kings 23:7 (KJV)

I love the KJV and I quote from it regularly as it is often has the most literal English renderings of phrases from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. However from time to time even the KJV translators would take liberties with certain phrases and this unfortunately is one of those cases.  The word that they are translating as “sodomite” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Qadesh” which literally means “male temple prostitute” and it has absolutely no connection to the Hebrew word for Sodom which is “Sedom”.  The original meaning of “Sedom” is unknown but eventually it came to mean “burning” in reference to God’s fiery judgment on the city of Sodom.

A “Qadesh” was man who sold himself for sex and the money used to pay him would go to the pagan temple with which he was associated. Often these were not just prostitutes but they were in fact male sex slaves. Would it be true that often times these men did engage in homosexual sex acts with other men? Absolutely. But they could also engage in sex acts with wealthy women as well so in the truest sense their activities were bisexual in nature.

The point about the word “Qadesh” (which was wrongly translated as “sodomite” in the KJV) is that it does not refer specifically to anal sex, but instead it refers to male temple prostitutes.

Now the argument I have just made is one that many advocates of homosexuality make to discount Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.  But just because the Hebrew words behind Sodom and Sodomite do not specifically refer to homosexual acts this does not mean the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexual acts.  Make no mistake that it does.

God condemns homosexual acts between men in the book of Leviticus:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

God condemns homosexual acts between men and women in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

But here is my point about the words Sodomy, Sodom and Sodomite.

Sodomy is never found in the Bible and even if the roots of this English word refers to the wickedness of Sodom it does not refer simply to anal sex. Instead it would refer to men forcibly having anal sex with other men – in other words one man raping another man. In a broader sense Sodomy might refer to all types of wickedness that were practice in Sodom including homosexuality, whoremongering, prostitution and rape.

The word Sodom refers to the name of a Biblical city and has nothing specifically to do with sexual sins.

The word Sodomite is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for male temple prostitute and while these prostitutes may have engaged in anal sex they also engaged in many other sex acts including normal sexual intercourse.

So if someone wants to say anal sex is condemned because the Bible condemns sodomites they would be incorrect in that connection. The Bible in these cases is condemning the rape of men and men being prostitutes.

So is anal sex ok for Christian married couples to engage in?

Up to this point you might think I am arguing that anal sex is ok because I have just shown that the Bible’s condemnation of sodomites is not a specific prohibition against anal sex but rather a prohibition against raping men and men being prostitutes.

But this is not the case.  I believe there is a Biblical case to be made against Christian couples engaging in anal sex whether it is because the woman wants to, the man wants to or they both want to. But we cannot build that case on the Bible’s condemnation of the acts of Sodom or the use of the word “sodomites” in the KJV.

Also I just want to say that anyone who knows me and has read my writings knows that I try to be very careful not to add to the law of God. We should not add rules for things as many Christians do just because we find these things to be “icky”.

For instance I am one of the few Bible believing Christian bloggers online that takes the position that the use of porn is not always sinful and can in fact be helpful to Christian men and women in many ways if used correctly. Even though there is no specific passage of Scripture that condemns the production of nude images or the use of porn (contrary to those who try and use Matthew 5:28 to condemn it) many Christians see “Thou shalt not use porn” as the 11th commandment.

So I am sensitive to the fact that when I say I believe anal sex is wrong I could be accused of doing exactly the same thing that I say Christian opponents of porn are doing.

So with all that being said as an introduction to the topic of anal sex let me now show you why I believe the Scripture condemn anal sex as a practice even between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage.

Where does the Bible condemn anal sex?

If you want to find a passage that says “thou shalt not have anal sex” there is no such passage.

But you won’t find Scripture passages for some of these things either:

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not punch thy wife and beat her to a bloody pulp whenever you get angry with her”.

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not punch thy children and beat them to a bloody pulp whenever you get angry with them.”

You won’t find a Bible verse that says “thou shalt not break the speed limit while driving.”

I could go on but you get my point.  There are many things where we do not have a passage of Scripture that speaks to that specific activity yet we know that God did not just “forget” about it.  Some of these wicked activities are condemned by broader condemnations and by broader Biblical principles.

We know we should not break the speed limit not because of some specific Bible command against it but because of the broader teaching of passages like this one from I Peter 2:

“13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”

I Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

So we need to follow the speed limit as it is an ordinance of man and speed limits do not step outside the authority that God has given local government nor does a speed limit require us to go against the laws of God.

The Bible does give the right and responsibility for parents to use corporal punishment on their children:

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”

Proverbs 13:24 (KJV)

But it does not allow the abuse of children – our discipline is to be not supposed to be some sort of revenge but it is for our child’s good.  We discipline our children out of love for them and looking out for their wellbeing:

“6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”

Hebrews 12:6-8 (KJV)

When it comes to wives and discipline God shows that he disciplined his wife Israel and later disobedient churches in Revelation:

“And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord.”

Amos 4:6 (KJV)

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

Revelation 3:19 (KJV)

But while husbands are called to discipline their wives – they are also called to love their wives as their own bodies by protecting them and caring for their needs:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

When a man beats his wife as abusive husbands do this is by definition an act of hatred against his wife and it is clearly condemn by the principles set forth in Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

In other posts I have argued that if a man physically abuses his wife she is allowed to be freed from him just as a slave was to be freed from their master if they were physically abused by their master as seen here in Exodus:

“26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

Exodus 21:26-27 (KJV)

The right not to be physically abused by those in authority over us is a basic human right that God gives to all human beings from the lowest social casts to highest social casts. No child, no wife, no human being is called by God to endure physical abuse simply because the person is in authority.

Some say a wife should just take physical abuse based on passages like this:

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Matthew 5:39 (KJV)

But this is talking about persecution for the sake of the Gospel. This is not talking about a wife enduring bloody beatings from her husband because he comes home angry and wants a punching bag. It also does not forbid Christians from fleeing persecution even for the Gospel when they can:

“Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

John 8:59 (KJV)

“32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: 33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.”

II Corinthians 11:32-33 (KJV)

My point in all this is that just because the Bible does not specifically talk about things like physically abusing your wife or children or breaking the speed limit does not mean it does not condemn these activities. In the same way I believe that while the Bible does not specifically mention anal sex there are Biblical principles that would in fact condemn anal sex.

What Biblical principles condemn anal sex?

Some Christians make an argument against anal sex based on the health risks it presents.  Some of these health risks are laid out in this article from WebMD:

“The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.”

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

So the argument of some Christians is that because of these health risks Christians should not engage in this activity as our bodies are called the temple of God and we are to care for them and not abuse them.

The Bible speaks of our bodies belonging to God:

“19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

I Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV)

Some might respond to the health risks of anal sex like a recent commenter on my blog who goes by the name of Jonadab-the-Rechabite:

“Your argument that anal sex is dangerous I think is also overstated. It is an activity less dangerous than motorcycle riding, and like motorcycle riding there are prudent measures that can mitigate the risks and make the activity safer and enjoyable. Is it a sin for a husband to want his wife to ride on the back of his motorcycle? The other ditch is to ignore those risks altogether, refusing prudent measures, this is loveless concern on the part of the husband. The same risks could be said about consuming pork. Pork could be dangerous if not properly cooked, it makes many people uncomfortable to eat an unclean animal and has been associated with health risks like heart disease.”

So should we not do things only because they are risky? Of course not.  If a husband asks his wife to do something and she does not want to do it simply because it has any kind of risk is she ok refusing? No – I don’t think risk alone gives a wife the right to refuse.

In fact I don’t think risk alone should stop a couple from doing something together like anal sex simply because of the risk.  What if a couple wants to go skydiving? That certainly is risky? So I agree with Jonadab that simply because something is risky that does not make that activity wrong.

The argument I make against anal sex goes beyond the risk factor – it goes to the heart of the issue which is design.

Anal sex violates God’s design of the body

I talk about design on this blog all the time. I marvel at the beautiful and distinctive ways in which God made men and women for their distinctive roles in his creation.

Design is why most women could never be a fire fighter and why few women could ever pass the vigorous tests of being a Navy seal. It is why men typically excel over women at heavy labor jobs and why men are less prone to physical injury than women.

Design is why most women can so naturally care for the needs of an infant and intuitively know what that child needs where most men would struggle in this area.

Design is why most women need to feel beautiful and why most men could care less about their outward appearance.

Design is why most men love vigorous competitions of all kinds while most women simplify love to talk and share their feelings with their friends.

So this then begs the question – “Is anal sex a natural use of the anus?”

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

God is very much concerned that we use our bodies in the way he designed them to be used.  He did not design the male body for sex with another male body and he did not design the female body for sex with another female body.  When men have sex with men they are going against the natural design of their bodies and when women have sex with women they are going against the natural design of their bodies. But when a man has sex with a woman – he and this woman are now using their bodies in ways that God designed them to be used.

But even when a man has sexual relations with a woman I do not believe that anyone can make an argument from a medical and biological perspective that God designed the anus for penetration during sexual relations.  Everything about the anus shows us that it is designed as an “exit only” orifice of the body. Unlike the much tougher linings of the mouth and the vagina the anus has a very thin lining that is easily torn and can bleed and become infected.

Over long lengths of time regular anal sex can stretch the anal sphincter and lead to an inability to hold one’s feces.

The pain of anal sex

Anal sex is naturally painful – even with lubrication because the anus was NOT meant for penetration.

Now just because something is painful does not mean it is necessarily a bad thing to do that thing.

When a person lifts weights or does any type of strenuous exercise (or hard labor) often their muscles ache because the muscles are torn and stretched by that exercise. When the muscles heal from this tearing they become stronger.

When a mother gives birth it is certainly painful.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

Notice the key word in Genesis 3:16 which is “multiply”. Even before sin God did not design child birth to a painless process any more than he designed people exercising (and thus tearing and stretching their muscles) to be a painless exercise.

No one would argue that the pain from exercise, hard labor or child birth means these activities are wrong to do.

But then there is another type of pain.  This type of pain is a pain that acts as warning to us.

Many of us when we were children experienced one type of this “warning pain” when our parents spanked us:

“Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”

Hebrews 12:11 (KJV)

The pain of our parents spanking us warned us that what we were doing was wrong and that we needed to not do that thing we were doing anymore.

Besides our parents spanking us though – we have another natural type of “warning pain” that God gives us.  As small children we may have touched something that was hot only to have it burn our fingers.  This served to warn us that our skin is not made for touching things with high temperatures.

In same way people often experience internal pains which tells them something is wrong. Often times a person’s life can be saved when they are sensitive to pain and report it to a doctor so they can help them.

It is this warning type of pain that a person experiences when they allow their anus to be penetrated. The pain we experience as human beings when our anus is penetrated cannot be compared to the pain a person experiences when they exercise, do hard labor, when a woman loses her virginity or when a woman has a baby.  These types of pains are not meant as warnings but they serve as part of God’s natural design.

But when we touch a hot stove with our hand or when a woman feels pain when her anus is penetrated these are warning pains that God gave us to tell us that our skin was not designed for extreme heat and that our anus was not designed for penetration.

The argument for anal sex from existence of dual purpose body parts

Now that we have addressed the issue of the design of the anus not be fitting for penetration for intercourse both from a functional perspective as well as from a pain perspective we will lastly address the argument that anal sex is ok because it may serve a dual purpose as other body parts do.

Jonadab-the-Rechabite said this about God’s design of our bodies:

“God has designed many parts of the body with a primary function and many secondary as well. For instance, the mouth is used for many functions such as eating speaking, breathing etc. If I said that the mouth was designed for eating so you should not kiss with it, you would probably disagree. It is fallacious to say the anus was designed to eliminate waste so it can serve no other function. The very same argument of teleology or design was used by fundamentalists against oral sex just a couple of decades ago. We are not free to add to the law or assume the exhaustive purposes of God when He has not revealed such.”

Yes some body parts have duel purposes – agreed. We can use our mouth to eat, to breathe, to kiss and to give sexual pleasure to our spouses. We can use our hands to hold things, to work, to paint, to play sports and to give our partners sexual pleasure.

A man’s penis used both to urinate and to give himself and his wife sexual pleasure.  A woman’s vagina is used both to give her husband and herself sexual pleasure as well as bear children.

I might agree with Jonadab that the anus could have been designed with a dual purpose as a secondary way of giving a husband sexual pleasure from his wife as her mouth does IF these things were true of anal sex:

  1. The lining of the anus was as thick and tough as the skin in the mouth or the vagina.
  2. The anus had a natural expansion mechanism for things to enter it as the vagina and mouth do.
  3. The anus did not give off warning pains when it is penetrated each time.
  4. The practice of regular anal sex over many months or years did not have a strong possibility of causing issues with feces not be able to be held and other health injuries.

But the fact is none the things I just mentioned are true of anal sex and therefore there is no way that we can conclude that the anus is a dual purpose body part on a woman that is meant for sexual pleasure in the same way her mouth and hands can be.

Some have tried to argue(and still do today) as Jonadab has pointed out that oral sex or hand jobs or any sex outside of vaginal intercourse is sinful and wrong.  They argue that God designed sex between a man and woman to only consist of vaginal intercourse.

But there is a huge difference between these other types of sex and anal sex. A woman’s hand does not burn and hurt simply because she rubs her husband’s penis with it.  A woman’s mouth does not hurt just from the fact that her husband places his penis in it. Now could a woman’s hand or mouth begin to get sore from prolonged sexual relations? Sure.  But so could her vagina.

But my point is that the intial contact with these areas of the body and moderate use of them during sex does not normally or naturally cause pain in the way that anal sex will cause pain whether from prolonged use or moderate use.

There is no warning pain from any of these other types of sex besides anal sex. In fact we can find allusions to these other types of sexual activity in the Song of Solomon. So trying to compare anal sex to oral sex or other types of manual sex is a comparison of apples to oranges.

A woman may experience pain during vaginal sex for reasons other than prolonged sexual intercourse.  But God did not design vaginal sex to be painful. If a woman were to go to the doctor and explain that she is having painful vaginal intercourse the doctor will tell her that is not normal and they need to look into reasons why that is happening. But if that same woman were to tell the doctor she has painful anal intercourse the doctor is going to say – “well that is because the anus is not designed for sex”.  Now yes you can find ways to reduce that pain but the fact is it is completely normal for anal sex to be painful because it is warning from your body that you are not supposed to be doing that!

Conclusion

The fact is that regular and prolonged penetration of the vagina, oral sex or other manual types of sex when practiced in a committed marriage relationship present absolutely no health problems and do not cause warning pains because these practices are using our bodies in ways in which God designed them to be used.

However regular penetration of the anus will over time cause stretching and damage to the anus and the ability for one to hold in their feces. It also causes warning pains to the woman telling her that God did not design her anus to be used for sexual penetration by her husband.

It is for these reasons that Christian couples should reject anal sex as part of their sex life – God did not design the anus as a dual purpose body part for sexual pleasure. Instead this body part was designed for one purpose and one purpose alone – the release of gas from the body and the release of waste from the body.  That is it.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”

While it is true that a woman’s body belongs to her husband it is equally true that he does not have a right to sinfully abuse her body that God has given him. So it is for this reason I believe the answer is NO a wife does not have to submit to this type of sinful request based on the Biblical principle that “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29).