- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Fresh from the success of his latest agitprop promoting socialized medicine, “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore is considering whether he will use his next movie to teach us all a thing or two about the mind and will of God.
That’s right, call him the Rev. Michael Moore.
Specifically, he intends to share his biblical wisdom regarding the issue of homosexuality and what he sees as irrational hatred of it.
“I think it’s a very ripe subject for someone like me to make a movie about,” he told the homosexual magazine the Advocate. “Simply because we are not there yet and it remains one of the last open wounds on our soul that we are not willing to fix yet.”
Moore told the Advocate he is a spiritual person who supports same-sex marriage.
“There is nowhere in the four Gospels where Jesus uses the word ‘homosexual,'” Moore related. “The right wing has appropriated this guy … and they have used him to attack gays and lesbians, when he never said a single word against people who are homosexual. Anyone who professes to be a Christian and does that is certainly not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Well, I don’t know which Bible the Rev. Moore is reading, but that’s not exactly correct.
First of all, let’s deal with the four Gospels. Why is it that Moore limits his reading of the Bible to the four Gospels? I’m sure he will suggest these books are the only ones in which Jesus’ actual words are recorded. But, again, that would be totally incorrect.
Jesus’ actual words are recorded in other New Testament books as well – such as Acts and Revelation.
Further, Christians believe God the Father and Jesus the Son are one in the same as well as distinct persons. So, it would stand to reason that wherever God speaks in the Bible, Jesus, too, is speaking in one voice.
Taking it a step further, Jesus made it very clear in those Gospels to which Rev. Moore refers that He believed and endorsed every jot and tittle of the Hebrew law handed down from God through Moses.
As Jesus explained in Matthew 5:17-20:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
In other words, what Christians refer to as “Old Testament law” still applies to us as the standard of righteous behavior. That’s what Jesus said. Follow the law or face the consequences.
Later in that same chapter, verses 27-29, He says:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
The penalty for lusting after a woman is death and hell, according to Jesus. Does Moore truly believe that lusting after men is acceptable to “this guy,” as he calls the Lord and Savior of mankind?
Later, again, in verses 31-32, Jesus reminds us:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
What’s the relevance of these verse to the issue of homosexuality? It’s very clear that Jesus sees sexual sin, any sexual activity outside of marriage, as particularly grievous. Does the Rev. Moore truly believe that homosexuals get a pass from this standard? Does he dare suggest only heterosexuals can commit sexual sin?
And what about the institution of marriage, which Jesus referenced above? Does Rev. Moore really believe Jesus envisioned it as an institution between two men or two women?
You don’t even have to leave the four Gospels to see Jesus’ definition of marriage. In fact, you don’t even have to leave the Book of Matthew.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
– Matthew 19:4-6
That’s what Jesus Himself said about marriage. It’s also a very strong statement about the fact that men and women were made for each other. There’s no talk here of civil unions. There’s no suggestion here of domestic partnerships. There’s no hint here that men should fool around with men and that women should fool around with women.
It’s a straightforward statement that alone should clarify any misconceptions about what Jesus thought and believed and commanded insofar as sexual unions.
But, again, the Bible and the Christian faith are based on much more than the words spoken by Jesus, who explained that He did not come to overturn the law but to fulfill it. That means the basic commandments of the Hebrew Scriptures didn’t change when Jesus came along. And those laws are crystal clear in condemning homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God – as they are in the inspired teachings of Paul in the New Testament.
In His definition of marriage, Jesus Himself was referring to the law as laid out in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
To believe Rev. Moore’s lies, you have to ignore the rest of the Bible entirely – suggest it is simply a fabrication, not God’s Word. And, of course, if you say that, you have to believe Jesus was a liar, because He just defended the law above.
I would like to hear what the Rev. Moore has to say about these other specific biblical references to homosexuality. But I doubt I will.
It begins in Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe Rev. Moore has another interpretation. The chapter goes on to state that people who commit these acts, and others God considers abominations, causes the land itself to be defiled.
Then, in the New Testament, Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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: 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.
I’m still waiting for any Bible student to show me even one verse that suggests a more “tolerant” view of homosexuality.
You can choose to believe the Bible. You can choose to disbelieve it. But you cannot say it says something it does not say or doesn’t say something it does say. That is what the Rev. Moore is doing.
You know and I know it doesn’t really matter to the Rev. Moore what Jesus taught about homosexuality. But he knows it still matters to enough Americans. So he distorts Jesus’ message to try to fool enough of the weak-minded and illiterate – the natural constituency, I suppose, for his movies.
Related special offers: