An advertising watchdog has banned a newspaper ad – run by a Belfast, Ireland, church – condemning homosexuality. The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the ad was offensive and indecent.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church ran a full page ad entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy” in the Belfast Newsletter to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade.
The ad states that homosexuality is an “abomination” and warns of “God’s judgment upon a sin.” It also says that it is “a cause for regret that a section of the community desire[s] to be known for a perverted form of sexuality.”
The church said it had been “obliged under God to publicly challenge the vices of this generation.”
The Belfast Newsletter said that not publishing the ad would have been an “infringement of freedom of expression on a matter of public interest.”
The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had “caused serious offense to some readers.”
The ASA determined that the ad went “further than the majority of readers were likely to find acceptable,” although the Rev. David McIlveen of Sandown church said there was no evidence of this.
It also rejected some complaints that the ad would incite hatred and violence against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
"The ad did not in itself incorporate language likely to incite a violent emotional response," the ASA ruled. But it went further to say the ad should not appear again in its current form.
McIlveen said ASA’s ruling on this point was “a vindication of the true spirit in which the statement was formulated.”
“However, we believe that the part of the adjudication in which the ASA upheld the complainants position shows a basic and fundamental ignorance of the teaching and application of God's Word on the subject of sodomy,” he continued.
“By adjudicating on what is in effect the message of the bible on the code of decency is, in our opinion, the setting of a very dangerous precedent.”
He also rejected ASA’s ruling that the ad was indecent.
“Many thousands of people throughout the UK are in possession of scriptures that declare sodomy as an abomination, a perversion of sexuality and a sin before God.
“Therefore by determining that quotations of bible texts and their application have breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency), the ASA is taking the view that the printing and publishing of certain biblical texts is indecent.”
He continued: “This is an offense to every bible believer. It is ironic that an authority that seeks to prevent others from being offended appears to have no scruples in offending those who hold to the plain teaching of the word of God.”
McIlveen said it would not heed ASA’s recommendation that it seek advice from its copy team before publishing material in the future.
“We see as an unwarranted interference into church affairs. It is totally unacceptable for any church to look to an outside body for their approval to print gospel tracts that are based on the word of God. This we cannot and will not do.”
RSS
If you read the Bible as it is written then yes, it would seem so. If you study the Bible in terms of its historical context, there is a very different picture painted.
Mike, the one verse from Leviticus (the Old Testament) and Romans(the New Testament) confirms Gods opposition to this sin from beginning to ending, thats all.
OK...so then why do you use that one verse against me if I am not a ceremonial priest?
Yes, Mike, I do shave from time to time, however the Levitical laws were priestly ceremonial laws for the levite priest.
So then you never wear clothing of more than one fabric? You do not trim your sideburns or shave your beard?
Mike, these were only two verses which show Gods oppositions to this sin but also taught the believer what the purpose of their true nature was.
Mike, yes, I truly believe in what the Lord revealed in Lev. and the book of Romans and practice it.
Gr8, so then you follow each and every law of Lev?
It is as clear as clear as day that when God reveal himself through his word that he was totally against the practice of sin and his law showed this Leviticus 18 chapter speaks about " mankind should not lie with mankind like with womankind" and in the New Testament, Paul come backs in Romans the first chapter 17-27 explaining how God's wrath was against the ungodliness of men(especially the unnatural use of men toward men and women toward women).
Prophet, I asked a question, why didnt you answer?
its apparent the homosexuals serve a god they have created in their image.
Hi Prophet, how'd that speech go?
maybe not treated, but definitely can be delivered from it. unless, of course, yoiu don't think God is big enough. and if he's not, then its obvious that we don't serve the same God. because my God is bigger than anything.
maybe not treated, but definitely can be delivered from it. unless, of course, yoiu don't think God is big enough.
Forgiven, unfortunately yes. NARTH ignores science and feels that homosexuality is something that can be "treated."
Mike22685,
Hope all is well. jh and I have been conversing over at the other post. There is some question to whether Paul refers to idolatry twice in essence repeating himself. Logically, I can not see Paul repeating himself. Paul seems to speak to idoltry practices first and then refers to same-sex sexual relations in the next.
I have another question though, this NARTH group, you wrote: "Medical research shows that it is unhealthy to try and force change on people, and even groups like NARTH have found astronomically high rates of failure in their attempts to "change" a person's sexual orientation. They can certainly guilt them into celibacy by misquoting the Bible and cutting them off from everyone who they think might be a bad influence on their "conversion" but the practice is condemned by every medical association in the country." is this their method? I mean does this group exist soley to "change" a person somewhat like a rehab type setting?
DP, Paul does not mention homosexuality as a sin, he mentions idolatry as a sin. Have you seen JH's posts under the opinion<misconceptions in homosexuality posting? He's quite brilliant with his theological studies and you might find them interesting. Medical research shows that it is unhealthy to try and force change on people, and even groups like NARTH have found astronomically high rates of failure in their attempts to "change" a person's sexual orientation. They can certainly guilt them into celibacy by misquoting the Bible and cutting them off from everyone who they think might be a bad influence on their "conversion" but the practice is condemned by every medical association in the country. That speaks pretty loudly to me that not all gays can change, and I don't find any Biblical evidence that says we should. If you do not truly study the Bible with an open heart, as JH explains he did, then its very easy to find verses you think condemn homosexuality, but in reality they simply indulge your prejudice.
"Including studies from groups like Exodus? They are biased, right?"
Mike, God set everything up on a faith basis. You either believe or you don't. It is by design that everything is bias.
Bias--"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
The question comes in if God has a bias. From what I've read God says He is truth. Therefore, truth is not based on "unprejudiced consideration" but rather how God considers something based on Himself.
That which is true is bias towards God. That which is not true is bias away from God (towards sin). Paul in Romans 7 says sin is defined by the law. He would not have known he was a sinner exept for the law. Therefore the law was useful to show him he was a sinner. One of the sins mentioned in the law is homosexuality. Pauls hangup was coveting. Yours is homosexuality. Paul saw he was a sinner because of the law. The law applies this way for you as well.
America needs a 'Jeremiah'
Jeremiah 6:10
To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.
mike,
im sorry. i didnt mean that you had to shut up. i like listening to you. i'm not a smart man, but you make me sound like one.
mike,
as are all the sources you quote from.
Including studies from groups like Exodus? They are biased, right?
"You need to investigate psychology to better understand sexual orientation and sexual addiction."
My dad was a college professor who taught human sexuality so I do have some idea of the different schools of thought on the subject. Most of the ones you are refering to start with the premise that gay is OK and work their theory to prove it.
As I have said many times...give me a subject and the bias you want the news story to show and I can get you the data and experts to 'prove the point'.
wow mike. i'm impressed. can i be your friend?
...yes, there are two very different things. You need to investigate psychology to better understand sexual orientation and sexual addiction. They really have no comparison other than they both have the word "sexual" in them.
On that note, I am taking my leave from here. I've got some major studying to do for an upcoming preaching engagement.
No there's not two different things. It's called genetic disposition. It affects all sorts of behavior
You are comparing an addiction to a sexual orientation, which are 2 very different things. There is no comparison.
Okay, okay, Mike. We know. God loves sin. And wants us to remain in it.
I've tried for 25 years to overcome sexual addictions. I'm glad I didn't stop there. I guess some people want to attain the image of Christ, and are willing to pay the price, more than others. To whom much is given, much is required. It all depends on how far you want to go in God. I choose to go further.
Oh I have tried before, so don't call me lazy. Nothing happened, no matter how hard I tried, so perhaps God does not need or want me to change. You DO NOT know God's will for me, no matter how highly you think of yourself.
And even though neither are lifestyles, both are sins. And thoses who willfully and unrepentantly continue in that sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I serve a God who can deliver us from our sins. He gives us power to overcome. Those who refuse to, are merely lazy.
You're right prophet, being a sex addict is not a lifestyle. It doesn't mean sex addicts or gays do not exist, but neither are a lifestyle.
Prophet, I wouldn't make a judgment call on that. I think protests are protests, and they serve a very specific purpose. If someone puts that sign up on their property, I think it is very different than putting it up in front of a church, which is not their property, and they are therefore intruding. Were Christian Post to publish the ad that was run in that newspaper, it would clearly have a different result. The church did it to be controversial, and that happened, but I'm sure the church did it with full knowledge of what would happen.
"There is no "gay lifestyle.."
And there is no sexual addiction lifestyle.
Mike,
I'm referencing the article here on CP talking about atheists putting a sign up on a public nativity scene saying that religion enslaves people.
There is no "gay lifestyle: and no, we're not trying to force anything on anyone. We will not, however, stand for blatant lies and hatred spread by religious folks who claim they love us. If anything, you are forcing your ways on us.
Phileo- Okay I feel you now, and I totally agree with your response. I think that we as Christians go with a lot of zeal but now undertanding when we try to win over souls. I know that the issue of perversion whether it be homosexuality or any other sin that we can't single it out. Unfortunnatley homosexuals are trying force thier life style on every one else and it just happens to be the fore front of our fight against principalities of this world. Everyone claiming to be Christian isn't becuase they want God to accept thier way and not His.
Please tell me what exactly you are referencing Proph
Mike
"This is ridiculous! This does not have to do with free speech, it has to do with using a very public newspaper for the explicit purpose of stirring controversy."
But it's okay for atheist to publicly post hate messages against Christianity?
here's an interesting slide show. i wish WE could get over some issues the way these Mexicans have.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/12/07/weekinreview/1207-MUXE_index.html
believer: yes. how sad. parents are responsible for their children. not school. not government. not church.
smbga, the problem isn't that prayer got taken out of the schools, but that prayer never made it home!
Mike: there are territorial spirits that control specific areas in the world. Could it be that the area you spoke of (ghetto) could be under the control of one?
Mike: Oppression comes from being 'pressed down' in your mind. It comes from satan. he knows that if he can oppress a person's mind, they will not get to their destiny. oppression is a horrible thing. oppression comes in different degrees. I firmly believe that all believers have come under this kind of spiritual attack on their mind. But to overcome it, we must first know what God's Word says about it. Then speak His Word. satan hates The Word of God.
SMBGA, I think of oppression as a group of people being held down by those with more power than them. The area I teach in was designed to be a ghetto in the 1920s and has never risen out of that status. Christians are not being oppressed just because their views are met with controversy (at least I don't think so.)
Mike22685, although I believe we should all be very careful not to cross boundaries of common decency, I agree with what you wrote.
Mike: what is your meaning of 'oppressed?'
Mike: christians are oppressed, because they have brought it on themselves. And yes I cry when I see areas that are in poverty. I am talking 'real poverty'. And that's an area that the church has failed in. There isn't compassion on the people that are poor and needy. Lord only knows what I would do with money. The poor wouldn't be poor any more.