Thursday, November 19, 2015

Why Are You Asking Me To Condone Your SIn?





Can someone enlighten me on why we have taken sexual sins and made them acceptable in society?


In the book of Leviticus chapter 18 there are instructions on how to conduct ourselves sexually.  When the LORD instructed Moses to list the sexual acts that would not be acceptable it was for the moral integrity of the people and the security of the nation of Israel.  The downfall of Egypt and the nations in the Land of Canaan fell because of the sexual permissiveness of the people. What the LORD was doing was establishing a code of moral conduct for civilized people.


 Moses instructed Israel concerning unlawful practices linked to sex these included: incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality. Israel's neighbors were much less restrained in their sexual attitudes and behaviors. They permitted closer intermarriage than God allowed. They also allowed homosexuality. Some forms of bestiality were acceptable as well.


As an orthodox Bible believing Christian, I accept the authority of the LORD in my life.  That means the commandments in the WORD of God are there for my personal and spiritual protection.


The fundamental principles of Biblical sexuality are set out in Genesis 1-2. The creation of one man partnered with one woman set the normative pattern for all to follow in sexual relationships. As for male-female unions, this set of laws presupposed that an Israelite would normally marry another Israelite. However unions between relatives of the first degree (brother-sister, father-daughter) and the second degree (father-granddaughter, nephew-aunt) were prohibited. Although the text directly speaks to men who might engage in improper unions, it implicitly prohibits women from engaging in such relationships as well. In marriage, husband and wife become one flesh so that each becomes part of the spouse's family. For this reason, unions to close to family members of one’s spouse were forbidden just as were unions to one's own close family members.


I have heard individuals tell how their life has been impacted by inappropriate sexual acts by family members.  There can be a lot of different effects from the sin of incest. Notice, I said sin not some mental disorder—sin.  I do not know of any mother or father who truly loves their children would want them exposed to this sin.  The effects of this sin are many: feeling of confusion, depression, and low self-esteem. It’s hard for children to understand what is happening, and even more difficult for them to understand that someone that they love would do anything bad to them. It is even more difficult to get a child to voice what is happening to them because they don't want to "tell" on someone.  The LORD gave this commandment to protect the children from this sinful evil. 


Most societies have laws governing the sin of incest, not necessarily because of what the Bible teaches, but on account of the effects of such unions on the health of families. Too much inbreeding leads to genetic problems, as is well known from the blood disorders that have afflicted members of Europe's royal families.


Here are just a few of the emotional damages children suffer from incest:  depression,  eating disorders, sleep disturbances, nightmares, physical complaints, school problems, withdrawal from family, friends, or usual activities, excessive bathing or poor hygiene, anxiety, self-destructive behavior, hostility or aggression, drug or alcohol problems, sexual activity or pregnancy at an early age, promiscuity, and suicide attempts just to name a few of the evil that come upon children who have been exposed to this sin.


The sin of incest is devastating to children.  Yet, there are those who argue that “love” is the foundation of approval for acts of sin.  How does that argument work for incest? Where are the Christians who justify other sexual sin based on “love”?  Do they support incest? How does this argument, “Who has the right to tell someone who they can or cannot “love” work for the sin of incest? Or, how about, “Who has the right to judge the actions of someone who commits the sin of incest?”
 

Again, let me say the reason there are sexual acts that are prohibited is for physical and spiritual protection of the individual and the nation.  The LORD has Moses repeatedly asserting the authoritative source of the instructions. When it comes to evaluating the social mores commanded by the Bible, it is tempting to rely on secular sources of authority that complement the Biblical standards. 


I read comments from individual who like making social science studies with their graphs and statistics a compelling argument.  They then add a few anecdotal stories, to persuade us the Bible is outdated.  The Bible does not rely on such external data or on the polling of public opinion. Our passage declares that these commandments have their source in the ultimate authority of God. The phrase "the LORD your God" is short for the most important core teaching in all of Scripture. "Your" God declares that the Lord has redeemed a people for himself. If you call yourself a Christian then this is “Your” God.  Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”


One sexual sin that is committed both in and out of the church is the sin of adultery. Sexual intercourse with someone other than one's spouse is an attack upon the marriage relationship appointed by God's ordinance of exclusive love in the marriage bond.  This sin is a direct assault on the security of the family structure and the destruction of the nation.  Adultery has at least two major impacts on the lives of the children of the adulterous parent: cheats the children of their sense of security and complicates the child's future and creates lifelong scars.


Research indicates children grow apprehensive and insecure as a result of behaviors demonstrated by adulterous parents. It is interesting to note that the characteristics demonstrated by the child of an adulterous parent are extremely similar to those of a sexually abused child.


Children who grow up with a parent who had an adulterous relationship are less likely to be able to maintain adult monogamous relationships. They are also more likely to have higher divorce rates than the rest of the population. These children are more likely to become teen parents and are more likely to have difficulty at school. Added to this, they are more likely to have behavioral and psychological problems.


How does the argument of “love” play out in adultery?  Where are the protester waving banners and demanding the right to “love” someone who is not the one they made a covenant to love until death? If it were your spouse that was carrying on an adulterous affair would you approve their actions based on “love”?  Where are those who say no one has the right to question what two consenting adults do?  When was the last time you saw married couple marching in the streets demanding the right to have sexual relationships with those other than their spouse?   Most people would shy away from individuals who advocated adultery.  Although, it is become acceptable in some segments of our society.


There are those who feel if permission is given by the other spouse to commit adultery it is acceptable.  With or without permission any Christians justifying the sin of adultery is in a partnership with Satan.  There are consequences for sin. For certain, your marriage will eventually be affected. Its foundation will crumble under the strain of sin. Its consequences are generational, as is borne out by King David and Bathsheba. Perhaps the greatest effect will be your relationship with Christ. No one is saying adultery is acceptable, even though it is practiced on a regular basis in the Church. Every one committing adultery tries to hide their sin.


Another sin that the LORD warned about was the sacrificing of children unto the Ammonite god Molech.  This was an expression of their devotion to him. When Israel fell into idolatry one of the gods they worshiped was Molech.  They offered up their sons and daughters as human sacrifices to it. Such a practice is an utter abomination unto the Lord, as children are a gift from the Lord (Ps. 127:3), and especially when God has blessed Christian families with children. So, sacrificing their children to Molech, besides breaking the first and second commandments, is a violation of the sixth commandment against murder (Ex. 20:13). Second, it is taking God's good gifts and offering those gifts of God up as sacrifices to worthless, lifeless idols. For children given to Christians there is a greater responsibility, this is taking away what rightfully belongs to God (which is theft), especially if he is the firstborn son (Ex. 22:29; Num. 18:15). Molech worship is so detested by God that he warned Israel very sternly against it.


I can hear Christians saying, “Well, I don’t worship Molech, in fact I have never heard of Molech.  So, what is the Molech worship which is present in our day? Surely there is nobody performing human sacrifices, and especially child sacrifices, now? Such a barbaric practice surely can't exist in our civilized world, can it?


The modern day Molech worship that we so-called civilized people are guilty of is the sacrificing of children.  In place of a physical idol of Molech, so-called Christians worship at the Molechs of choice, convenience and of pleasure. As a culture, evil has progressed at the altars of humanism, in putting ourselves as the final determination of what is correct or wrong. To this 'Molech', we sacrifice our children, for our own selfish interest.  So how is this happening today?  The modern form of Molech worship is through abortion. It is just as abominable and detestable to the Lord. This is especially so for Christians, since those who abort are aborting their children given to them by the LORD to raise for His glory. Because of all this, the wrath of God is being stored up (Rom. 2:5) against us and our culture, because we practice such an abomination. America rightly deserve the wrath of God to break upon us in terrible and righteous judgments for the abominable and detestable things we are doing in the sight of God. 


The Church is split on the issue of abortion.  The number of Christian woman having abortions is equal to those who have no religious connection. There are those who feel it is the choice of the woman to decide if the unborn child lives or dies.  Sacrificing our children to the gods of this world is sin.  The Church has gone down the road of convenience and self-fulfillment rather than serving the LORD.  Killing the children is in effect destroying the family and nation.  Since 1973, over 55 million babies have died at the hands of those who have no regards for human life.  Yes, under government sanctioned murder, a woman can have her unborn child’s life taken at her discretion.  Today, there are unrestricted abortions, which are legal throughout America right up to the very moment of birth.  Individuals who value human life in all of it forms find the number of unborn babies aborted each year a moral travesty of civilized humanity.  


Where are the rights of the unborn?  How can Christians justify murder of children?


The next sin list is one that changed the very culture of America.  Moses listed in the 22nd verse reference to having sexual relations with the same sex: homosexuality and lesbianism. I started in the ministry at the age of nineteen.  To date, that is 48 years in the ministry.  Thirty of those 48 years have been at one church.  During these 48 years I have seen the progression of evil within our nation.  I have had a front row seat in the changing of America.  I have watched as the orthodox teachings of the church changed the meaning of sin.  The belief system of the church has been hijacked by so-called Christians.  Today, it is amazing that we can accept Christ but still continue in sin, one would think that no matter what you do, if it is done in love, God will smile on it because-- God is love.


I have been seeing and hearing the term love used by those who support same sex marriage.  I as a Christian must show love towards the LGBT community.  I must support their right to love whoever they choose to love.  If I were a loving Christian, I would not speak out against same-sex marriage.  Before the LGBT supporters start quoting scripture and trying to defend their position with the Bible --make up your mind about the Bible, is it true or is it no longer relevant to our culture?  The LGBT supporters need to make up their mind about what is a Christian?  Don’t call yourself a Christian when you cannot accept the commandments of Christ.  Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”


As far as love is concerned, I try to love my neighbor as myself. Loving my neighbor as myself means I accept who I am.  I do not go around trying to prove to people that I am something I am not. I am comfortable with my social status, my family heritage, my religion, and my sexual orientation.  I do not go about trying to make people accept me.  I am, who I am, and have no problem loving myself in the context of the scripture.  If this scripture applies to me as a Christian it applies to the LGBT individuals who call themselves Christians. Those who quote scripture to support their position in Christ need to apply the same interruption to themselves. 


I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:16-17


I do not have nor have I ever had a problem with loving those who have violated the commandments of the LORD.  I have the same feeling that Paul had when speaking about the spiritual condition of his people,  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.  For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Romans 10:1-4


When the Bible commands me to love, it does not require me to unconditionally condone the actions of those who perform acts the scriptures identifies as sin.  The love Paul talked about was a divine love—agape love.  This love is patient and kind, does not envy or boast, does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  This love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. ICor. 13:4-7


While I have never stooped to call any LGBT individual a bigot, a hater, a narrow-minded, unloving and unkind person, I on the other hand have been called all these things and some I cannot print.  I might add this was from LGBT individuals and supporters who called themselves Christian.  I have never advocated violence against any LGBT individual, I have never tried to get them fired from their job, I have never boycotted the business of an LGBT individual, those I know, I have treated them with respect.  I only asked for the same.  Jesus said to his disciples because he was hated they would also be hated.  John 15:18-15  If I oppose your sin it does not mean I hate you.  


Why is it that I am so wrong in believing the Bible as the moral guide for my life, yet the LGBT supporters want to use the same Bible to judge me as an unloving, unkind, hateful bigot that is clinging to an outdated book written 4000 years ago?  I stand on the Bible as my personal spiritual guidebook. When the Bible says, marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual practice is sin. to what am I to remain faithful to—the world or Christ?


Any Christian who really believes the Bible must believe all of the Bible. You can’t quote what Jesus says about loving your neighbor and disregard the LORD’s commandments in Leviticus 18 and 20. You can’t get excited about the transformer power of Romans 8, if Romans 1 has condemned your life-style as evil. Either the Bible is God’s Word or it is not.


Several years ago I was pushed to the point I had to make a stand against the leadership in our denomination over the authority of the scripture and same-sex marriage.  It was the LGBT community that pushed the issue for everyone to accept same-sex marriage—even though it was unlawful in our state for two people of the same sex to marry.  The line was drawn and sides were taken and for several years the battle played out each year until enough was enough.  In 2005 our church became independent believing that the same-sex issue was behind us.  Ten years later, here we are again faced with the entire nation being forced to accept a group of individuals who have not learned to love themselves.  They seek affirmation of their life-style by those who are not in agreement with them.  Forcing us to say to them, they are OK in doing what we believe, based on the Bible is sin.


This is an issue of biblical authority. Either you accept what the scripture has to say or you don’t. I thought ten years ago I would not have to talk about homosexuality any more.  But that is not the case.  If it is not a Christian business being targeted by the LGBT community, it is lawsuits, protest, school curriculum, or some other issue revolving around a group of people that have become militant in their action against those who believe the Bible to be the authority on which we govern our lives.  Regardless what our courts or legislative bodies rule, homosexuality is a sin.  It is not an affliction, it is not a disease-- it is a sin.  This is not my definition it comes from the Bible.  We either accept this or reject it. 


You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. Lev. 18:22


This straightforward law prohibits all homosexual acts. It makes no distinctions as to whether or not they were consensual. It is listed in a section of laws related to sexual relationships. All of the items in the 18th chapter listed are said to “defile” and are called “abominations”.  Moses includes homosexuality in a list of sins, it is not singled out from the rest of the sexual sins, but is included with the rest. Also, those who break any of these laws are to be “cut off from the midst of their people”. These various sexual activities are ones which brought about the punishment of God upon the previous inhabitants of the land. So in the law homosexuality was an offense against God. It, along with the other sexual sins, was not to exist in Israel at all.


Why is this important to the orthodox Christian to follow this Old Testament command?   The beginning of chapter 18 of Leviticus tells us why it is important.  The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord your God. After the practices of the land of Egypt, from where you lived, you shall not follow, and after the practices of the land of Canaan, to where I will bring you, you shall not follow; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. You shall follow My decrees and keep My ordinances to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, then he shall live by them: I am the Lord. Lev. 18


29 For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, those persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore you shall keep My ordinances, that you do not commit any one of these abominable customs which were committed before you, so that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God. Lev.18


The LORD list the sin of homosexuality as an abomination.  Why if homosexuality is based on “love” would God class it as a detestable sin? Maybe we need to look behind the rainbow and see the evil it hides. 


The LGBT activists attempt to portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, and insist that their relationships are the equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts. The media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is quite opposite to this caricature which was shared by the homosexual newspaper New York Blade News:

Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.

With the government accepting same-sex marriage for the entire nation there may be some stability in the relationships of homosexuals but it is doubtful.  Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different from marriage.  In some research the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.  With the change in the law maybe this will change.

The physical influence of this life-style is devastating.  The diseases range from AIDS, HPV, HIV, Hepatitis, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Gay Bowel Syndrome, and Anal Cancer. Doesn’t sound like a great life to live?

Many Lesbians also have had sex with men indicating the Bisexual activities they are engaged in. Lesbians have more male sex partners than their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman's sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of 'lesbian' women reporting sex with (often high risk) men." The study found that "the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners."


The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false.  The physical impact on lesbians is just as devastating as it is among gay men.  Studies on lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight.


The image that the LGBT community is well adjusted is false.  Lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors: Like most problem drinkers, they have abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many have compulsive difficulties with food, codependency, sex, and money.


In addition to the false image portrayed by TV and movies there is a high rate of violence in the gay and lesbian relationships.  Researchers have found 90 percent of the lesbians survey have been abused by their intimate partners.  The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.   Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.


Not only is there a physical impact there is a mental health issue as well.  Over 75 percent of 2000 lesbians who responded to a survey by the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology had psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. There was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.


The Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely to attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders.  The greatest impact is the reduced life expectancy.


Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, the Church has a responsibility to expose the true nature of the LGBT life-style.  


The LORD listed this as a sin, not a life-style, not an affliction, not a disease indicating it is a choice.  It is a choice that will eventually destroy their lives.  Can anyone explain to me why a nation would encourage this life-style?


Sexual relations with an animal - is mentioned. Copulation with an animal may have been a fertility cult rite, since it was common in Canaan. The practice is condemned because it did not fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth.  It was not part of the propagation of the family or nation and violated the “one flesh” design of man and woman.


In every one of these sins there are physical, emotional and spiritual issues that destroy the person, the family and the nation. The numerous forms of illicit sexual behavior defile the land. Uncleanness and sin were contagious, infecting everything that came into contact with them, including the sanctuary and the land. The term "vomited" is a personification of the land underscoring the poisonous contagion of uncleanness and sin. 


These laws were for the Israelite people and those that dwelt among them.  Proper sexual behavior is required of both native and sojourner. Obviously, two different sets of moral standards in regard to sexual behavior would lead to chaos. Sexual freedom from the Hebraic law among the pagan residents would be too alluring and tempting to the Hebrews and they so easily fell into such sin.


Although the laws in Leviticus 18 set forth moral/ceremonial principles, the sexual prohibitions listed are still in effect today. The New Testament echoes the teaching of Leviticus 18, for it also prohibits incest (Mark 6:17-29; 1 Cor 5:1-5), adultery (Rom 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4), and homosexuality (Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:10). Furthermore, the principle that relationships outside of marriage are illicit are the foundational truths of Leviticus.  This truth also seems to be the foundation of Jesus' teaching on divorce that a man should not divorce his wife and be joined to another since by marriage the two had become one flesh (Gen 2:24 with Matt 19:3-6). As C. S. Lewis has stated: "Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'" Sex outside of marriage detracts from what God intended sex to be. Thus, sexual infidelity inevitably disrupts the "one flesh" relationship (Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16-17). Moreover, it is devastating to the entire family. As Kellogg noted: "Where there is incest or adultery, we may truly say the family is murdered; what murder is to the individual that, precisely, are crimes of this class to the family." Marriage is not just a civil arrangement; it is a divine institution!


Within the Old Testament itself Israel's rebellion was described by the metaphor of marital or sexual unfaithfulness. This is due in no small part to the fact that Israel was considered to be married to the Lord (Ezek 16). Like the Old Testament, the New Testament uses adultery as a figure for infidelity to God (Matt 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38).


In every sin listed there are people today who claim they have the right to “love” others according to their life-style.  From pedophiles, LGBT, fornicators, adulteress, and those who would marry their pets, the world has gone crazy with lust and perversion, when will it stop? 

Friday, October 23, 2015

Putting Aside Our Religious Differences




Not everyone that says they are a Christian are followers of Jesus Christ.  There are those who claim to be a follower, but lack the love and tolerance for non-essential doctrinal disagreement.  One of the main problems with Christianity is the division of denominations.-I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas; I am of Paul.  We should all be of Christ    Often those claiming to be Christian are intolerant of those with different religious opinions.  It is time that Christians come together and put aside the non-essentials of doctrine and preferences and work together to bring change to our churches and our country.  Persecution of Christians is about to take a trip back in history and it will not matter what name you call yourself, it will come down to this, are you a true Christian?
Let us take a little trip back in history to 1660.  The Massachusetts Bay Colony of the New World was a Puritan theocratic state in the early 1650s. Puritan leaders did not have much tolerance for people of other religions, and as a result, the Puritan government often persecuted and banished religious outsiders who tried to enter and live in their Puritan towns. A fear was embedded in the Puritan society that if they started to admit outsiders, they would lose their political and religious control of the colony.
The Bay Colony enjoyed a high degree of social harmony, stemming from common beliefs in the early years, but dissension soon appeared.  ​The Quakers who flouted the authority of the Puritan clergy were persecuted with fines, floggings, and banishment
Beginning in 1656, members of the newly formed Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) started to arrive in the Massachusetts colony on ships from England, where Quakerism had recently emerged. The Quakers who arrived in Boston's harbor demanded that they be allowed to live in Massachusetts and practice their own religion freely. They were greeted by intense hostility and were often forced to board the next ship out.
The first known Quakers to arrive in Boston and challenge Puritan religious domination were Mary Fisher and Ann Austin. These two women entered Boston's harbor on the Swallow, a ship from Barbados in July of 1656. The Puritans of Boston greeted Fisher and Austin as if they carried the plague and severely brutalized them. The two were strip searched, accused of witchcraft, jailed, deprived of food, and were forced to leave Boston on the Swallow when it next left Boston eight weeks later. Almost immediately after their arrival, Fisher and Austin's belongings were confiscated, and the Puritan executioner burned their trunk full of Quaker pamphlets and other writings. Shortly after they arrived in Boston, eight more Quakers arrived on a ship from England. This group of eight was imprisoned and beaten. While they were in prison, an edict was passed in Boston that any ship's captain who carried Quakers into Boston would be fined heavily. The Puritan establishment forced the captain, who had brought the group of eight Quakers to Boston, to take them back to England, under a bond of £500.
Despite the intense persecution of Quaker newcomers by Massachusetts' Puritans, Quakers continued to come to Boston in increasing numbers and attempted to spread their message by whatever means possible. They came by ship from England and Barbados and by foot from Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Once in Massachusetts, they rose to speak following Puritan sermons and during trials and shouted from jail cell windows. They published pamphlets and held illegal meetings. They refused to pay fines to the Puritan government and refused to work in jail, with the latter often resulting in their jailers depriving them of food.
The Massachusetts Puritan government soon passed other laws aimed at stopping Quakers from entering and disrupting their status quo. Ship captains, learning of the fines, often refused passage to Quakers intending to sail to Boston. One Englishman, Robert Fowler, from Yorkshire, however, felt called to build a ship to transport Quakers from England to Massachusetts. He built the Woodhouse and set sail from England with eleven Quakers. One of the eleven was Dorothy Waugh, a farm servant from Westmorland who said she had been called by the Lord to come to America and share the Quaker message.
In all, from 1656 to 1661, at least forty Quakers came to New England to protest Puritan religious domination and persecution. During those five years, the Puritan persecution of Quakers continued, with beatings, fines, whippings, imprisonment, and mutilation. Many were expelled from the colony, only to return again to bear witness to what they believed. One of them, 60-year-old Elizabeth Hooten, returned to Boston at least five times. The Boston jails were full of Quakers, and four known executions of Quakers took place in Massachusetts during those five years.
As is evident, the Quakers were not a quiet group in Puritan New England. From their speeches in the courthouse, the church, and from jail cell windows, they attracted a number of supporters and converts. Locals would often give money to jailers to feed the otherwise starved inmates, and the Quakers' unflinching commitment to speaking their truth touched many. There is evidence to suggest that the Puritan hatred towards Quakers was not omnipresent within the Puritan community. For example, the law banishing Quakers from the colony on pain of death was only passed by a one-vote majority. John Norton was the most outspoken critic of the Quakers and is credited with spreading much of the anti-Quaker bias.
Perhaps the most notable Quaker to be brutalized and eventually executed by the Massachusetts government for being a Quaker was Mary Dyer. Dyer originally came to Massachusetts in 1633 and settled there with her husband. In 1652, Dyer returned to England, where she was exposed to Quakerism and accepted Quaker ideals. Five years later, on her way to rejoin her family who had since moved to Rhode Island, she landed in Boston, along with two fellow Quakers, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson. The three were at once jailed for being Quakers and were banished from the colony. Dyer left for her family in Rhode Island, but Robinson and Stephenson stayed. Two years later, in 1659, when Robinson and Stephenson were jailed again, along with several other Quakers, Dyer returned to Boston to visit them in jail. She was arrested upon entry and all were held for two months without bail. Upon their release, they were banished from the colony under penalty of death, but Robinson and Stephenson refused to leave.
In October of that year, Dyer returned to Boston once again to visit another imprisoned friend. This time Dyer, Robinson, and Stephenson were all jailed and sentenced to death. On October 27, the three were led to the gallows, and Dyer watched as her two friends were hung. When it came to her turn, she was granted a last minute reprieve but refused to climb down from the scaffold until the law banning Quakers was changed. She had to be carried down and was forcibly removed from the colony.
Dyer spent the winter in Rhode Island and Long Island but insisted on returning to Boston the following spring. On May 21, 1660, she entered Boston and was immediately jailed. She was quickly tried, and on June 1, 1660, she was hung on Boston Commons.
It was not too uncommon that when a Quaker was being tried and prosecuted under threat of death, another Quaker would openly walk into the courthouse and disrupt the proceedings. Wenlock Christison did just this at the trial of William Leddra in 1661. Christison, himself, who had been banished from the colony under pain of death, burst into the courthouse crying out that for each “servant of God” that the Boston government hung, five more would rise up to take their place. Christison was arrested but never had to face the gallows.
The citizens and magistrates of Boston began to grow tired of having to punish the Quakers and Leddra was the last Quaker to be executed by the Puritan government. A messenger had gone to England to ask for a memorandum from the king. King Charles II, a Catholic supporter, wanted to provide a notification for the Catholics of the New World who were also being persecuted. When a Quaker messenger came asking the king to also provide sanctuary for the Quakers, he agreed. The “King’s Missive” did stop the executions, but punishment of the Quakers by the Boston government still continued, though it was less harsh. As more diverse groups of people landed on the shores of the New World, the persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans gradually faded. By 1675, Quakers were freely and openly living and worshiping in Boston.
This persecution would not have stopped had there not been those willing to stand up and be counted.  In fact, before the Quakers gained the freedom to worship after the four who were hanged, twenty-three other Quakers were scheduled to die by hanging before the King of England intervened. One would think that the Puritans, after escaping persecutions themselves by fleeing to New England, would have been more tolerant. But, as you will see, their self-righteous spirit, viciously dealt with all conflicting religious opinions; and, since the Quakers were far more convicting than any other sect, with their nontraditional doctrines, they were most brutally persecuted. The callous, unchristian brutality of the Puritan persecutors has only been exceeded by the priests of the barbarous Roman Catholic inquisitions, who murdered 9,000,000 souls in the Middle Ages. The murdering Puritans and the Catholic priests had all believed in Jesus, had been baptized, took communion, read the Bible frequently, prayed frequently, attended worship services regularly — they were all saved Christians murdering and torturing those with different religious opinions. So it is simple to conclude — if you want to understand true Christianity, study what those said, who were the victims. Few could argue that the murderers could possibly be Christians.
The same is taking place in America today.  There are those who have a different view of their responsibility in serving the LORD.  There are those who claim, like the Puritans to be doing the work of the LORD.  It should be noted that these same Puritans were in control of the government in Connecticut and Massachusetts.  These same religious leaders passed laws that confiscated property, cut off ears, bore a hole through the tongue with a hot iron, imprisoned and banned other Christians from their state.  Today, the names have changed but the actions have not.
One would think that in the 21st century that the government would act in a more tolerant manner towards those who believe they have a certain obligation in how they serve the LORD.  As not only moral laws are changing in the government, the same is true within the Church.  As the government has legalized the murder of babies, those who speak against this barbarism are considered intolerant, unloving, unkind and even bigots.  The same goes for those who believe they cannot support the LGBT agenda because of teachings in the Bible.  So, just like the 1660’s the government fines those who cannot for conscience sake support the immoral actions of the LGBT, even though it has been made legal by the government.  
What is amazing is the government leaders who support the killing of babies and the immoral actions of the LGBT often claim they are Christian.  Like the Puritans and Roman Catholics it is justifiable to persecute those who cannot for conscience sake, support the actions of murder and immorality as they believe is taught in the Word of God.
One needs only to study the history of early Quaker persecution to understand the mindset of those who are intolerant.  As you study records of persecution, notice how it was the preachers and ministers, (also true in England), who were the principal advocates of violence, including death; often inciting reluctant government officials to go beyond humane bounds, plunging into the depths of Satanic barbarity.  
The actions of Puritan persecutions further proves the Quaker's belief that the government should not interfere in religious affairs.  Every time the government has interfered with the religious freedom of any group of people, government leaders and often religious leaders felt justified in their persecution of those who did not bow to the powers that be.  This has been demonstrated here in America where Native American Indians and Amish have been regulated by the federal government how they can practice their religion.  Most Christian denominations did not care what was happening to the religious freedom of those who did not believe as they do.  It was not their fight.  What has happened is the government has now expanded their authority over Christian beliefs and practices by the power of the court.  The religious freedom to worship the LORD according to the dictates of their heart is no more. It is time that true Christians take a stand to stop the loss of our religious freedom.  It is time we start pushing back with the transformational power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We can no longer give a watered down version of the message of the cross.  That message is to cry out against the evil in one loud voice.  We can no longer listen to the voice of tolerance for sin.  We can no longer allow the government to dictate to the church: how we believe, how worship, where we worship, what our mission is in the world.
There are government and church leaders who tell us to practice our religion in church and not in our everyday life. The cry of separation of church and state is a one-sided discussion.  The state dictates to the church what they can and cannot do.  An example is the IRS makes the decision who is an ordained minister.  Besides giving the pastor his job description, which is based on the Roman Catholic model of worship and polity, the IRS is demanding many other things that are clearly designed to make the IRS Commissioner the new head of the churches in America.  Some of these demands of the government are a direct violation of religious freedom.  How can the government tell the Christian to practice their religion in church and not everyday life when the government practices their control in the church?  Here is some ways the government is involved in the church:
1.      The church must collect a Federal ID (Social Security) number from visiting evangelists, missionaries, preachers and singers before they invite them to the pulpit. They must give a Form 1099 to any minister who receives up to $600 in a years’ time, which includes missionary support. If the ID is not received, the church leaders must withhold a jeopardy assessment of 39% on the spot and send it to the IRS.
2.      They must agree to the IRS definition of benevolence. They cannot deal in cash at any level, but must deposit all offerings into a checking account and write checks for every purpose. This means, of course, that the church, in order to conduct its ministry, has to have an Employer Identification Number which must be provided by the IRS by filing Form SS-4 which a true New Testament church could never do and remain obedient to her Lord. In fact, church leaders have to misrepresent the church as a religious organization rather than a New Testament Church to be compliant with government regulations.
3.      Other things that pastors and church leaders are required to do are to be an informer against their members and also to preach only IRS prescribed sermons.  Remember 1954, Johnson Amendment.  Also, all fund raising material must be submitted to the IRS for their approval.  Most churches are unaware of the IRS requirements and a not in compliance.
4.      The job description for pastors is a list of nine specific sacerdotal duties which again is a Roman Catholic definition meaning sacred. The Catholic Church teaches that these sacraments, when administered by a priest, are essential to one’s salvation. This is totally opposite to the Bible definition which states that baptism and communion are memorials of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that they follow salvation. The nine duties are: baptisms, weddings, serving the Eucharist (the Catholic sacrament of communion), teaching, spiritual counseling, christenings or baby dedications, administration of church affairs and the regular conducting of worship services. If the pastor does a substantial number of these things, he will receive very lucrative tax breaks. 
5.      As a Quaker minister, the physical sacraments are not, nor have they ever been part of a Quaker minister’s responsibility.  This action of the IRS is in direct conflict with the Quaker teaching of the “Priesthood of the Believer”.  As Quakers believe everyone is a minister of the Gospel and we are called by the LORD and not by the government.  This action of the IRS is in clear violation of the scriptures concerning the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which the Lord Jesus said that He hates (Rev. 2:6, 2:15). Others who minister to the church in the area of music, youth, children, education and other areas of responsibility don't qualify as an ordained minister, according to the IRS.
6.      The IRS does not consider such ministries as Sunday school, Christian school, busses, youth camp, vacation Bible school, nursing home, etc., to fall within their definition of the word "church".   The Dole Committee (Sen. Bob Dole-R-Kansas) in the US Senate sought to bring the churches into compliance with the FICA tax (social security) laws. This was the deal that would eventually cause the raid and seizure of the Baptist Temple in Indianapolis, 17 years later.
I remember the discussion among Christians during the shut-down of the Baptist Temple how Rev. Gregg Dixson, should bow to the government.  Today, the church has bowed so often that government regulation has taken away many freedoms of religion once held by American churches.
These requirements should be intolerable enough by just the fact that the IRS would even dare to suggest duties for pastors, but to impose under the penalty of imprisonment and confiscation of property the same responsibilities of Roman Catholic priests is nothing short of naked tyranny. The issue is very simple. Will the churches of America bow down to the government in violation of the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," or will they bow down to the Lord Jesus Christ? Our Lord said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). The purge is now on as we hear of Christian businesses closed on a regular basis because there is no such thing as separation of church and state.  The state has been involved in the business of the church, to the point they even tell us how much of the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ we can actually carry out.
The church is regulated to the point that how the church shows charity to those in need is appalling. There are guidelines how charity is to be given in the areas of food, clothing, housing, medical emergencies and utilities. The church cannot help with transportation or auto repairs and a myriad of other things that churches have historically done on a regular basis. The church cannot make loans to the pastor, members, or others which churches have always done. Obviously, they want to make sure that the money lenders get their profits even from the poor. Can you imagine the government of the US limiting a church as to its duties in regarding charitable activity? There is no subject in the Bible that is nearer to the heart of God than charity. According to the Apostle James, it is the test of pure religion (James 1:27). Paul the Apostle declares that charity is of higher value even than preaching and sacrifice (I Cor. 13:1-3). For the churches to dishonor such a high and noble service to Christ by submitting its administration to the wicked IRS is beyond belief.
So, let me say this, there are more issues at stake in the protection of religious freedom than the LGBT concern.  We can focus so intently on one issue, that we are fail to see our freedoms taken from us by those who seek to destroy the church.  I believe there are true Christians to be found in every Christian denomination.  I believe, the true Christian, is ready to join with other Christians, to fight the evil that is facing those who are following Jesus Christ. Just as early Quakers realized that if they were to have the freedom to practice their religion they would need to stand up and push for that freedom.
Christians who believe in God had better wake up and realize that a well-orchestrated campaign is moving to transform the United States into a thoroughly secular nation without any reference to God. If this succeeds, we will no longer enjoy our First Amendment right of “free exercise” of religion but will be forbidden to speak or display any prayers, Bible quotations, or other evidences of religion in any public place or event.  If you are a true believer in Jesus Christ and part of the Body of Christ, then it does not matter what your denominational name is, what matters is that you a in Christ and need to stand with those who are faithful to the cause of Jesus Christ.  Our religious freedom is important but our message of the transformational power of Jesus Christ is of greater importance.  We cannot ignore the evil and sin that is destroying our churches and nation by being silent and allowing our faith to be dictated by an ungodly government.  It is time that Christians come together and put aside the non-essentials of doctrine and preferences and work together to bring change to our churches and our country.