Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Church|Wed, Dec. 03 2008 10:27 AM EST

Church Ad Banned for Being Offensive to Gays

By Jennifer Gold|Christian Today Reporter

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.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Mee »
    Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    We are to stand by the Word of God ... Evil will attack the church , but in God who can be against us, God our King and Lord. It's War against Evil.

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    To Prophet, msg dated 7Dec08, having been married to a Christian wife, who became bi-, who raised my son as a gay, having worked in the Dept of Health, AIDS/HIV

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet to Mike, msg dated 7Dec08, update: all sin enslaves, removes God's blessing and protection, see Deu 28 for the Blessins & Curses of God, gives Satan a legal reason to send demons to oppress and possess, brings disease and hardships such as Job endured, demoralizes, kills physically and spiritually then condemns one eternally to the Lake of Fire. Atheists have no basis in fact to support their claim there is not God, it is all based on a priori assumptions and feelings, which are not provable. Christianity or Messanic Judiasm are provable in a historical and prophectical sense.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Here is my comment: All who are condoning a sin is also a partaker of said sin therefor shall be held accountable to the price that sin will cost you. Either her in this pitiful life or the next - Fact is fact - it changes not based on a poll taken by man or by the mass opinion. I can only hope that church made fryers and pasted them all over their town regardless of the news paper rejecting their ad.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, historically, paul wouldn't have encountered that much homosexuality in terms of couples, however, there is documentation about pagan orgies that Paul was referring to.

  • Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I am rereading this scripture in Romans andthere is no rape mentioned at all, Mike, maybe you are missing something, verse 27 of chapter 1 of Romans "Likewise also the men, leaving the" natural" us of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful," this is describing mutual conscent by the terminology "burned in their lust, men with men" and then saying the act which was engaged was "shameful". This is what Paul saying from his studies of the Torah (Old Testament).

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    No, I don't believe he does. He certainly would have used better language for such.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    There was probably temple prostitution in ancient Roman society, Mike, However Paul didn't speak about prostitution but thw whole act of homosexuality, which was mutual or forced rape. Romans show both acts of it was a sin.

  • Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:19 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    John, the historical context of that is Paul's witness to temple prostitution. The language he used in the original text (and this is coming down from biblical scholars I have spoken with, I don't even know where I'd begin!) is an us and them when writing about Christians and Pagans, and Paul speaks using the "them" language, referring to pagans having such practices. He warns against going to such extreme lengths to try and worship a false God. Historically, there were male temple prostitutes who would have a sex change so men could worship them (hence, the unseemly part.) Paul was very traveled and it would seem he had better language to describe homosexuality if that was his ultimate goal.

  • Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:54 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

    Ro 1:27 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.

    I am curious how this can be twisted into not saying that homosexual activity is a sin.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Gr8, sodom was about rape. That verse is talking about Pagan ritual worship (men left the use of women and had sex with male priests, some of whom historically would have a sex change to be more like a woman for worship purposes.)

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Romans 1:26, For this reason <God gave them up to vile passions. For eventheir women exchanged the "natural use" for what is" unnatural". Verse 27, "Likewise also the men , leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their own lust, men for men , committing what is shameful", doesnt sound like rape, Mike but mutual interaction of an unnatural sort. It is defined in the last verse as unnatural ,Mike.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    The words "strange flesh" doesn't tell you that something was abnormal pertaining to what the inhabitants were doing Mike?

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, and it is my belief that the sexual immorality was lust and rape, not a loving relationship. If you went into a gay club I would be the first one to point out that there is plenty of sin going on, but its EXACTLY the same at a straight club.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    To make it more evident Mike, the book of Jude confirms this action of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, with the Verse7 of the first chapter, "As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in a similiar manner to these , having given themselves to sexual immorality, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." this confirms what Leviticus from the Old Test. and Romans in the New Test. say about Gods displeasure concerning this matter.

  • Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    The Bible also confirms a certain type of judgement upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was an act of judgement, meant to prove what God totally opposed with that type of inhuman action, and after the judgement, which was in Genesis, and God put this in his revealed law which was exposed through Moses after the Exodus through the formation of the Jewish nation.

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:52 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:27 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    OK...so then why do you use that one verse against me if I am not a ceremonial priest?

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yes, Mike, I do shave from time to time, however the Levitical laws were priestly ceremonial laws for the levite priest.

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So then you never wear clothing of more than one fabric? You do not trim your sideburns or shave your beard?

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mike, yes, I truly believe in what the Lord revealed in Lev. and the book of Romans and practice it.

  • Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Gr8, so then you follow each and every law of Lev?

  • Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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).

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, I asked a question, why didnt you answer?

  • Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    its apparent the homosexuals serve a god they have created in their image.

  • Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Prophet, how'd that speech go?

  • Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    maybe not treated, but definitely can be delivered from it. unless, of course, yoiu don't think God is big enough.

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Forgiven, unfortunately yes. NARTH ignores science and feels that homosexuality is something that can be "treated."

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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?

  • Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:47 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "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.

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    America needs a 'Jeremiah'

  • Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:10 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike,
    as are all the sources you quote from.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Including studies from groups like Exodus? They are biased, right?

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "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'.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    wow mike. i'm impressed. can i be your friend?

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:29 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ...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.

  • Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    On that note, I am taking my leave from here. I've got some major studying to do for an upcoming preaching engagement.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No there's not two different things. It's called genetic disposition. It affects all sorts of behavior

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    You are comparing an addiction to a sexual orientation, which are 2 very different things. There is no comparison.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Okay, okay, Mike. We know. God loves sin. And wants us to remain in it.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:45 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    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.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links