Baptist Preacher Says Homosexuality Should Be Capital Crime

A Baptist Pastor named Grayson Fritts in Knox County Tennessee said God has granted the power to government to arrest and execute homosexuals.  He made these statements while preaching from Leviticus 20:13 which says homosexuality is capital crime.

What is also very noteworthy is that Pastor Fritts was also a Knox County police detective for 19 years.  He had quietly accepted a buyout a couple weeks ago.  Some are calling for his police pension to be reviewed.

He claims that this never affected his job as a police officer equating it to if he worked at Burger King that he would still make food for homosexuals and not do anything to their food because it was his job to do so and this is the same way he carried out his duties as a police officer.

In the recording above, after his initial sermon which caused the media firestorm around him, he made it clear if you listen to his whole sermon, he never called on individual civilians to kill or do anything to homosexuals. He was saying God has invested the civil government with this power to arrest and execute homosexuals.

So those who were saying he was inciting his church members or other civilians to go out as individuals and cause harm to homosexuals are factually incorrect and the recordings of his sermons prove this.

You can read more about him in this article from WBIR.com entitled

Offensive and reprehensible’: Knox Co. DAG reviewing cases involving detective who condemned gay people and called for their executions in sermons

Many Christians on Facebook and elsewhere have said his statements saying he hates homosexuals are the complete opposite of the Christian faith and that hate of any kind has no place in true Christianity.

However, those Christians who say this may want to consider the words of King David in the Psalms:

“Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord,
    and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
    I count them my enemies.”

Psalm 139:21-22 (KJV)

God Both Hates and Loves Sinners

While anyone who reads this blog will know I have some disagreements with John Piper in some areas of theology, on this subject of hatred in regard to sin he has a great sermon and article about this entitled “God Loves the Sinner, But Hates the Sin?” where he states the following:

“The problem with the statement—“God loves the sinner, but hates the sin”—is that it is misleading. It is not a false statement. And what is misleading about it is the word but, but hates the sin, because but should be and. God loves the sinner and hates the sin. But implies he doesn’t hate the sinner—that is not true. God does hate sinners. Psalm 5:4: “You are not a God who delights in wickedness. Evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes. You hate all evildoers.” Or Psalm 11:5: “The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” So it is just not true to give the impression that God doesn’t hate sinners by saying he loves the sinner and hates the sin. He does hate sinners. His wrath is real. It is not something he pours out on people he approves of.

This infinite disapproval is what the Bible means when it says God hates sinners. He infinitely disap-proves of them. Sin is not sinful except as committed by sinful hearts. Sin is an expression of anti-God human corruption, human hearts. Sinful volitions are owing to sinful hearts. Sin doesn’t just hang out there with its own existence, it is in hearts or it is nothing. Sins do not suffer in hell, sinners suffer in hell. I wonder what people who say that believe about hell, because he is not punishing sin in hell, he is punishing sinners in hell. He hates—now here is the paradox—and he loves at the same time. For God so loved the world that he hates. Hate and love are simultaneous as God looks upon hateful, rebellious, corrupt, loathsome, wicked God-dishonoring sinners.

Now here is the distinctions we need to make. This is just so crucial. I hope people will listen carefully. Hate and love both have two meanings each. Hate can be intense loathing of a quality or hate can be be-yond that the intense intentionality to destroy. Love, similarly, can be an intense delighting in a quality and it can be an intense intentionality to bless even in spite of the presence of some unsavory quality.”

And now after showing Piper’s words on the subject of hatred in the Scriptures I will add a few thoughts of my own on this subject.

If we examine the Scriptures we will find a truth that is uncomfortable for many modern Americans.  We are taught in our American culture that all forms of hate are bad and all forms of love are good.  The Bible however, teaches something very different.

The Bible teaches that hate is sometimes holy and love is sometimes vile.

Consider these two passages from the Scriptures below which illustrate these twin truths:

Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 97:10 (KJV)

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)

This is Both a Religious Issue and a Political Issue

I have quoted the following statement from Leviticus 20:13 multiple times on this blog in past articles and comments:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

While no punishment is prescribed for women in Lesbian relationships, the practice of Lesbian relationships is condemned by God in Romans 1:26.  But the government could punish Lesbians in some way short of capital punishment.

However, God has granted the civil government the right to treat men having sex with men as a capital crime and Romans 13:4 says the following of the civil government’s authority by God to perform capital punishments for certain sins which he allows it for:

“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.”

This power DOES NOT belong to individual citizens .  There is no Biblical warrant for individual citizens to execute men for having sex with men, only the civil government has this power.

I understand where this Pastor was coming from and I partially agree with him.  If we are talking about male homosexuals – then I 100% agree that the government has the right to make homosexuality a capital crime for men.  If we are talking about female homosexuals, then I would support criminalization for female homosexuality short of capital punishment.

Conclusion

Many who even disagree with his statements have said it was his free speech right as well as religious freedom right to make the statements he did from his church pulpit. But as I have stated on this blog several times, there are others in this country that want to criminalize what this man did from his pulpit.

But these same people do not realize that if this man were to be led away in hand cuffs for what he stated from his pulpit that this would probably ignite a second American civil war just as there are a few other issues that would as well (like gun confiscation).   So be careful of what you wish for (criminalizing Pastors preaching against homosexuality) because you may just reap the consequences of what you sow.

Rachel Maddow offended at Bill Clinton for calling Hillary “a girl”

Apparently Bill Clinton committed a mortal sin by checking out his wife before he knew her name and just referring to her as “the girl”.  This is the opinion of the raging feminist Rachel Maddow.  We can all agree that Bill Clinton has committed a lot of sexual immorality.  The Public record testifies to this fact.  But checking out his wife as student in college before he knew her name was not one of his sins.

This is what Bill Clinton said that was apparently so offensive to Rachel Maddow’s feminist ideology:

“In the spring of 1971 I met a girl.

The first time I saw her we were, appropriately enough, in a class on political and civil rights. She had thick blond hair, big glasses, wore no makeup, and she had a sense of strength and self- possession that I found magnetic. After the class I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn’t do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn’t stop.

And I saw her several more times in the next few days, but I still didn’t speak to her. Then one night I was in the law library talking to a classmate who wanted me to join the Yale Law Journal. He said it would guarantee me a job in a big firm or a clerkship with a federal judge. I really wasn’t interested, I just wanted to go home to Arkansas.

Then I saw the girl again, standing at the opposite end of that long room. Finally she was staring back at me, so I watched her. She closed her book, put it down and started walking toward me. She walked the whole length of the library, came up to me and said, look, if you’re going to keep staring at me…

…and now I’m staring back, we at least ought to know each other’s name. I’m Hillary Rodham, who are you?

I was so impressed and surprised that, whether you believe it or not, momentarily I was speechless.

Finally, I sort of blurted out my name and we exchanged a few words and then she went away.

Well, I didn’t join the Law Review, but I did leave that library with a whole new goal in mind.”

http://time.com/4425599/dnc-bill-clinton-speech-transcript-video/

And now we get to see Rachel Maddow’s feminist response to Bill Clinton’s speech.

Rachel Maddow’s Response to Bill Clinton’s speech

“I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly,” she said. “Talking up ‘the girl,’ ‘a girl,’ leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl, thinking about whether he was starting something he couldn’t finish.

“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/maddow-beginning-bill-clintons-speech-shocking-rude/

Now let’s break down the sins against feminism that Bill Clinton committed in his speech.

The 3 commandments of feminism that Bill Clinton broke

  1. Thou shalt not refer to a woman as “a girl”
  2. Thou shalt not attribute any of a woman’s success to her marriage or her husband.
  3. Thou shalt not be attracted to an unnamed girl based solely on her body.

Before I continue – I am not saying there are only three commandments of feminism.  In fact someday I will compile a list of what I think all the commandments of feminism are.  But he definitely broke these three commandments.

Why feminists think it is so horrible to refer to Hillary as “a girl”

What Bill Clinton was seeking to do by referring to Hillary as “a girl” was to try and demonstrate that she has the softness, gentleness and empathy of a typical woman – in essence he was seeking to present her feminine side. Now in truth based on how she as acted in the public eye since her husband was President more than 20 years ago we know she is anything but feminine.

So I say to President Clinton you get an A for effort, but  a F for substance because no one is buying what you tried to sell about your wife.

Hillary Clinton was one of the manliest first ladies this nation ever had as far as her demeanor and feminists love that about her! Feminists having a seething hatred for women who act like women.  They only respect women who act like men.

This is why Rachel Maddow literally had a cow about the description of Hillary Clinton as “the girl” because it took away in her mind Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength – the fact that she is such a masculine woman.

Connecting a woman’s success to her marriage and her husband is “shocking and weird”?

In feminism it is just fine to say “behind every great man was great woman” but apparently it is a mortal sin in their religion to say “behind every great woman was a great man”.

While I might agree with them that “tooting your own horn” and telling people how you helped make someone else become great is not exactly cool – I don’t see that in Bill Clinton’s speech.  He was simply trying to humanize Hillary Clinton and speak about her from a very personal level.  But for the foaming at the mouth feminist Rachel Maddow any mention of her as a girlfriend, wife or mother and somehow associating that to her success was the height of evil!

Before we continue though I want to just let my readers know that while I respect the offices that Bill and Hillary Clinton have held – I do not respect their persons.  While most politicians to a certain extent are liars and cheats – this couple has wrote the book on scheming, lying and manipulating people to get what they want.

Anyone who has watched “House of Cards” would see Bill and Hillary Clinton in that show.  Also anyone who is honest with history would admit Hillary Clinton has rode her husband’s coat tails since he was the Governor of Arkansas and she has little real accomplishments in her political career and many more failures than successes.  It is simply her last name that has brought her where she is today.

And this is for you Rachel Maddow.  You may find it “shocking and weird” when a man talks about how he was first attracted to his wife.  But I think the majority of Americans would find the behavior you and the rest of the LGBQT community engage in as FAR more “shocking and weird”.

How dare a man check out a beautiful woman without even knowing her name!

This last violation of the feminist religion is the most interesting one.  This is a violation to even many women who don’t think of themselves as feminists – even some conservative Christian women who are opposed to feminism.

“How can a man be so attracted to and mesmerized by a woman simply because of her body and appearance? He does not even know her name let alone anything about her! How shallow! How crass! He is objectifying her!”

What I am about to say I have said many times on this blog and it will continue to be one of the primary themes of this blog.

Man need to stop being ashamed of their masculine natures and the way God designed them as men.

Yes our masculine natures as men have been corrupted by sin just as feminine nature in women has been corrupted by sin. But this behavior in men is NOT a corruption of man’s nature.

A man is not shallow or childish by allowing himself to be attracted to a woman without even knowing her name or anything about her.  It is by the design of God himself and we as fathers and husbands must instill a healthy respect for this part and other parts of the masculine nature in our daughters and our wives.

When we hear our wives or daughters talking down about men checking them out or them noticing men checking out other women we as men need to call them out. I know this brings up the question “Well wouldn’t you be offended if some guy checked out your wife or daughter?” If I respect another man’s masculine nature as much as I want him to respect mine then no it should not bother me and it does not bother me.

What I mean by “checking out” a woman

Now I need to clarify what I mean by “checking out” a woman because I am sure all sorts of definitions are going through people’s minds.  But before I can define what I mean by “checking out” a woman I need to help the ladies understand the masculine nature a little better.

Let me explain this in a way that women can understand and I think most men if they are being honest about themselves will verify what I am saying to be true.

Here is the formula that all women must be made to understand:

Crying for Women = Staring for Men

Ladies have you ever just heard a story or watched a scene in a movie or television show and you have involuntary tears coming out of your eyes? In these moments your emotional response is completely involuntary and it just a natural response by your feminine nature to certain stimuli.

In the same exact way sometimes when a man sees a beautiful woman he may also experience an involuntary response to seeing her beauty – he may he may stare and he may even get erection simultaneously.

Women need to be taught that what I have just described is a normal masculine response to female beauty and this type of natural response to feminine beauty by men should never be criticized or looked down upon by women.

Am I contradicting my previous statements about men not gawking at women?

I know for those who have read other articles I have written on men looking at women that what I may have said might seem to contradict what I have previously written.  In my post “How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3” I gave this advice to men after spending most of the article addressing how women respond to men looking at women.

“What that means men is that while glancing at beautiful women may be natural for you, and give you pleasure, you have to make sure you are not mastered by this. Eating is something we are naturally driven to do as well, but we can eat too much, and too often, the same principle applies to our God-given male sexuality.

There is a difference between Glancing and Gawking

While I would say that woman are wrong for condemning men for taking discreet glances at other women, I would say men are equally wrong when they gawk at women. The classic seen of construction works whistling and saying obscenities to a random woman as she walks by is an example of unconstrained, uncontrolled male sexuality, and that does not honor God or women.”

I talk a lot about men “glancing, not gawking” and to do this requires self-control on the part of the man. Now some Christians would say a man should not even glance at another women – or take a second look at her.  To do so is lust in their view. I have dispelled this unbiblical belief in my article “What is Lust?”.

But where we can agree is that it is not appropriate for men to gawk. So let me further define what I mean by gawk.

For the purposes of this blog – I define gawking as “a man purposefully staring at a woman that may cause her or others in the area to feel uncomfortable”.  

This is not the same as a man involuntarily staring and not even realizing he is doing it.  Sometimes we as men are accidentally mesmerized by your beauty ladies in the same way sometimes something just makes you cry – remember that.

Now that I have given all that as background I will now define what I mean when say it is ok for a man to “check out” a woman.

For the purposes of this blog when I say “check out” as in a man “checking out a woman” I mean that a man is either involuntarily staring at a woman or he is taking purposeful tasteful glances of a beautiful woman.

Now all of us men at a certain point will realize we are involuntarily staring at a woman and at that point we can and should catch ourselves and then if we still want to check out that woman we should move to tasteful, yet purposeful glances. If we continue staring at a woman after we catch ourselves and thus we are doing it purposefully then this would be the very definition of gawking and not something we as gentlemen or as Christians should do.

How should women respond to men checking them out?

Well I already wrote a three part series on this subject that I still get a fairly large amount of email on to this day.

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

But I will add this advice to those articles. Ladies if you catch a guy accidentally staring at your cleavage or your rear end cut the man some slack. Wives if you catch your guy accidentally staring at another woman cut the man some slack.  There is a big difference between involuntary staring or tasteful glances and purposefully staring (gawking).

Ladies respect the way God made the men in your lives – whether they be your father, your brother, your husband or your sons.

Men respect your masculine nature and stop condemning yourself every time you are drawn to feminine beauty and have the natural responses God made you to have.  Just practice self-control and exercise your God given masculine nature within the bounds of God’s law.

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