Scott Lively Ministries

[Preface: I am writing this article on Memorial Day, 2016, in the City of Cherbourg, France, one of the first and most important cities liberated from the Nazis in the Allied invasion of Normandy in World War II, when the United States and Russia were united in the common cause of defeating Nazi fascism. I dedicate this article to the memory of my father, Maurice Lively, who later served in the US Army in Korea (at the depths of Russian/American hostilities) and to President Ronald Reagan, whose vision of a Russia restored to its Christian foundations and whose work to destroy the Communist stranglehold there has largely been realized. This is published with a reminder that the center of Marxist evil in the world has shifted from Russia to America and to the EU where it thrives at the heart of the so-called Progressive movement that is now so close to defeating Christianity in the west. On this Day of Remembrance, let all true lovers of freedom vow to resist the Marxist monster in our midst as aggressively as we once fought it in National Socialist Germany and Soviet Communist Russia. ]

There aren’t many things about Barack Obama’s foreign policy I would want any politician to emulate, but there is one thing I would like Donald Trump to do if he becomes President: apologize to the world for the actions of his predecessor! Especially regarding Obama’s attempt to force the fascist LGBT agenda on everyone, everywhere in every possible way.

After that Mr. Trump should shut down the anti-Russian war-propaganda that the Obama/McCain/NeoCon axis relaunched in 2013 after the Russians passed their law banning homosexual propaganda to children. That law — a monumental achievement in the fight to preserve Judeo-Christian civilization — highlighted the glaring contrast of values between the now anti-Marxist Russia and the now pro-Marxist US and EU, and shifted the contest for influence in the still family-friendly nations of the former Soviet Union in Russia‘s favor. Within a few months several nations, including Ukraine, moved toward adopting a similar law and for a short while it looked like an international pro-family counterrevolution would emerge to challenge Obama’s dangerous global LGBT blitzkrieg.

Whether or not the passage of that law was a cynical political ploy by Russia (as some pundits wrongly claim), Mr. Obama and Germany’s Chancellor Merckle could have easily countered it by simply articulating and affirming America’s and Europe’s traditional family values to reassure those nations being lured eastward by Russia’s pro-family stance that we respected their beliefs. What a tremendous blessing that would have been for everyone, including those interested in building friendship instead of hostility between the US and Russia.

Instead Obama chose to abandon the “reset button” policy he had previously announced toward Russia and moved to revive the cold war. Pushing the world closer to nuclear war was deemed preferable to putting the “gay” agenda on hold.

I believe and have stated previously that Obama’s devotion to the LGBT agenda was his chief motivation for orchestrating (with the help of his pal George Soros) the Ukrainian coup to oust pro-Russian president Viktor Yanucovych in 2014 — in defiance of the EU (remember Victoria Nuland’s “F*ck the EU” comment in the planning stages of that coup? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o ).

That coup — or “regime change” if you prefer — created the current tensions deliberately. Obama knew that Russia’s vital strategic interests in the Crimea would force the Russians to annex it rather than lose it to the US and EU (the Ukrainians have always been pawns in this proxy war). And then, accompanied by John McCain on the war drums, an old medley of anti-Soviet propaganda themes was dragged out of mothballs and re-worked to convince US news media-watching population (especially the conservatives — since we were most at risk of recognizing Russia as a pro-family ally) that Russia, not the US was the aggressor, and (ridiculously) that the Baltics and other former Soviet countries could soon be at risk of a Russian ground invasion.

That was and is a contrived pretext at best but one that seems plausible to Americans with cold-war era memories but little knowledge of the enormous positive changes in Russia in recent years. And one that has since been bolstered by three years of Soviet-style anti-Russian propaganda in both the left and right leaning major media.

(It’s quite disappointing that conservatives who can spot “progressive” political bias from a mile away on a whole slate of domestic social issues turn around and give credence to the same lying journalists and media organs when it comes to foreign policy. Especially after watching Russia demonstrate such diplomatic maturity and military finesse in Syria — while building mutual cooperation and respect with Israel — in such glaring contrast to Obama and Clinton’s disastrous ineptitude in that region.)

In concert with the smear job came the economic sanctions, collapse of the oil prices and other machinations designed to bring Russia to its knees, which so far have failed, in large part (I believe) because the Russians are vastly strengthened as a people and a nation due to the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church and the growing revival of their Christian faith. Russia is not the godless “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union any longer. (That demon moved to Germany in the early 90s and reinvented itself as the EU). Russia is not flawless by any means, but it is a country of good people that could be a great friend of America if we stopped letting Obama and the GOP establishment poison the relationship to further their nefarious elitist and anti-Christian agenda.

I suggest that Mr. Trump could do the world a great favor and dramatically ratchet down global tensions by following Mr. Putin’s example of pushing back the Marxists and the gangsters within his borders (yes, he had his own versions of the Clinton and Obama crime syndicates to deal with) and inviting the church to reclaim its rightful place in steering domestic policy norms back toward faith and family values. Then by redirecting the US State Department to promote greater family-centered cultural cooperation with the Russian people (and all the people of the world we have offended and harmed by pushing sexual deviance on their children). With a return to authentic family values would come a natural desire to steer away from war and its evils, and a new basis for seeking common ground in all geo-political affairs. And as always, the climate for doing business would improve when our goals are driven by a common desire to pursue mutual benefit rather than exploitation and control by force of will and arms.

In his run for president, Mr. Trump has seen the true face and character of America’s domestic enemies in both the “Progressive” movement and the GOP establishment. Hopefully he will (if elected) have the vision and courage to rebuild America’s moral and patriotic infrastructure in such a way as to severely diminish the influence of these anti-family Marxists and to increase cooperation with countries like Russia which are doing the same.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”… Who call regression progressive, and progress regressive. (Isaiah 5:19-23 paraphrased)

The reprobate Kenyan usurper posing as President of the United States — the one who defends infanticide and champions the global normalization of sexual anarchy in its most perverse forms — has called upon the world to raise its standards of morality. With the cool condescension that has become his trademark, Barack Obama recently extended his international apology tour to Hiroshima, where he proclaimed to the planet “we must re-imagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.” Lofty idealism from the center of the nest of Cultural Marxist vipers that is called the Obama Administration — where such vague abstractions so easily justify the raw abuse of every organ of the most powerful office in the world in the pursuit of global political and cultural hegemony for an ‘oligarchy’ of predatory corporatists.

The irony of Marxism-driven crony capitalism seems to be lost on the American public after several generations of dumbing-down in “progressive” public schools and universities, as is the hypocrisy of a lecture on moral restraint in science and technology by the president who has perfected assassination by robotic drones, lauded the inhuman experimentation and marketing of human embryos by Planned Parenthood, and pushed the world closer to nuclear war out of a visceral hatred for the pro-family moral conservatism of the now anti-Marxist Russian Federation and its resurgent Russian-Orthodox state church (and a well-founded fear that Russia could lure back the still family-oriented former Soviet countries absent Obama’s new cold war).

But those with a Biblical worldview are not deceived by Mr. Obama, nor the self-proclaimed “progressive” movement he heads by virtue of his role as its chief spokesman, nor the war-mongering wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing progressives of the GOP establishment.

Yet even among the enlightened there are few who directly challenge the claim that the agenda of the Marxists represents progress. For example, we allow these pompous and self-righteous moralists-without-moral-understanding to perpetuate their narrative about a supposed leftist “tide of history” without interruption, and by our silence allow their fantasy to become self-fulfilling prophecy.

It would greatly benefit the world for American conservatives to start educating their neighbors on the meaning of true “progress” in human civilization.

The root of civilization is heterosexual duality, the “one-flesh” paradigm of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 without which human life and the natural family would be impossible. And the story of civilization’s progress is the story of our collective embrace of virtue over vice in our relations with one another: self-restraint instead of self-indulgence. It is the essence of the teaching of Jesus Christ on human affairs — which happens also to be a self-evident truth for anyone of any religion who seeks to recognize the hand of God in Creation (Romans 1:18-20, 2:14-15).

Thus the “progressive” goal to eliminate legal and social policies that favor heterosexual norms, monogamy and family-centered communities — and that discourage sexual promiscuity — is not at all “progressive.” It is regressive! It represents the unraveling of the social fabric, not the weaving of it.

In nearly everything the “progressive” perspective is upside down and backward. Good is evil, evil is good. Capital punishment for self-confessed murderers is morally indefensible. The permission to kill innocent unborn babies during the birth process is a moral imperative. Tolerance for lethal-disease-spreading voluntary sex acts that have killed millions is our highest social value. Public disapproval of these acts is a loathsome form of anti-social conduct so egregious that it justifies the suspension of the constitutional right to free speech. And on and on.

This is not a novel analysis. But it’s rarely translated proactively into a rebuke to those who use the word “progressive” as if it really means progress.

Our cultural opponents are not progressives, they are regressives, and we should all agree to challenge them on this fact every time they use the term from this day forward.

Ps. And lets not forget to pray for them to be saved and restored to sanity, even Mr. Obama.

For those with eyes to see, the culture war we’ve been fighting for over half a century — the war of Christianity vs. Marxism — has entered a new phase. The Marxists have for all practical purposes defeated the American church, the last major barrier to global government, and the battlefield has shifted and broadened to the international community of the developed western world. There, as here, the Marxist elites have already successfully implemented LGBT cultural supremacy and granted favored status to Islam, to neutralize Christian political influence (in all but a few pockets of resistance, such as the countries of the former Soviet Union).

Having thus severely weakened the western nations their new emphasis is the elimination of national boundaries, while creating the infrastructure for global governance under the pretext of “climate change” and “sustainable development.” That “Transforming Our World” agenda was formally adopted September 25, 2015 by the UN General Assembly in a campaign led by Barack Obama and endorsed by Pope Francis.

They are moving so very swiftly now that they have awakened the sleeping giant of nationalistic populism internationally. That has produced the Donald Trump phenomenon, BREXIT, and the rise of the so-called “Far Right” in numerous countries. An ideological world war has begun that will result in enormous political and social chaos that the elites will attempt to use to their advantage by expansion of the police state — but with a globalist flavor.

Much of the American church is stuck in the value voter strategy of the past decades (one which I have fully embraced for most of my adult life), placing its hope in Ted Cruz, the magnitude of whose loss reflects just how much “value voter” influence has diminished — a fact that should sober all of us, even those many Christians who support Trump. If Mr. Cruz had run against Dole, McCain or Romney he would have won the primaries in a landslide and become the darling of the conservative movement. But the political landscape has changed — dramatically and irreversibly — because the globalists have defeated our moral-values agenda and have begun their one-world end game.

The fight now is existential for the concept of national sovereignty that underlies all forms of government in the world political order — even the strongest and best of all of these forms, our Constitutional Republic (as it was envisioned by our Founders and honored by our grandparents).

After World War I, those who failed to adapt themselves to the new paradigm of war built the concrete-bunkered Maginot Line in France as the ultimate, unconquerable defense against German aggression. But in WWII, the Germans just drove around it.

As American Christians, let’s not make the mistake of fighting the last war rather than the next one. The battlefield has changed and we can exploit that change to our advantage if we’re smart. Let’s help the populists defend national sovereignty and defeat the Cultural Marxists, AND be fully prepared to reoccupy the positions of cultural influence that the Marxists stole from us as they are pushed back across the cultural battlefield — similar to the way the Russian Orthodox Church under Putin has re-claimed the positions of cultural influence in the Russian Federation from the Soviet Communists.

Friends,

A supporter in Taiwan just finished converting our “NOT ‘Just Another Sin'” brochure to video format and it looks fantastic!

https://tv.gab.com/channel/scottlivelyministries/view/not-just-another-sin-video-brochure-637e1071ad7bb6a9634dfa24

This 9 1/2 minute video is a great way to teach the fundamentals of the Bible regarding homosexual sin, and a great summary of Bible bullet points on this timely topic for pastors and Christian leaders to use as a resource.

Please pass it on.

Blessings,

Dr. Scott Lively

The print version of this brochure is available here:
www.scottlively.net/2014/08/19/not-just-another-sin/

The 18-page article based on this brochure is available here:
www.scottlively.net/2014/12/26/the-forgotten-last-days-warning-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible/

I’ve received criticism from several Catholic readers of my recent article in which I opined that the Trump phenomenon represents the rise of nationalism in response to an escalation in the globalists’ pursuit of a one-world government.

http://theapologeticsgroup.com/history-politics/the-best-analysis-ive-read-to-date-on-the-2016-presidential-elections/

They are unhappy that I included Pope Francis on a list of “globalists” with Obama, Cameron, Merkle and others.

To the extent that my Catholic friends’ dismay is limited to my lumping Francis with Obama I hereby issue the clarification that I do not believe that these two men share the same character or motivation. I think Obama is an evil man whose enthusiasm for child killing and sexual anarchy is not simply political expedience but his actual ideology. I think Pope Francis is merely left-leaning in his otherwise Catholic worldview (but not as liberal as the media misrepresents him to be), probably due to the heavy influence of Marxism-inspired “liberation theology” in South America, where he is from. That alone establishes a huge chasm between these two men, even if they both belong on a list of world leaders who desire to see the world governed eventually by one central authority.

So to that bigger question. Does the evidence show that Pope Francis supports the globalist agenda I outlined in my article?

The fact is that Francis, after meeting with Obama at the Whitehouse, gave the historic keynote speech at the UN that endorsed and launched its so-called “new universal agenda” — a 17-point list of priorities for global governance — in commemoration of the UN’s 70th anniversary. Here are his own words, reported by the Vatican:

“The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html

And then Obama invoked that speech just days later in a global call to fight “climate change“ and ensure “sustainable development.” http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/09/28/obama-invokes-pope-francis-at-the-united-nations/

Friends, “sustainable development” and “climate change” are heavily loaded globalist euphemisms. See a simple summary and translation of those euphemisms as expressed in the 17 points of the UN’s 2030 Agenda here: http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/09/25/agenda-2030-b-s-translator-how-to-read-the-uns-new-sustainable-development-goals/

Whatever moral and ideological differences they may have, Obama and Francis are clearly cooperating to promote this agenda across the world.

I’m not a Catholic basher. I love my Catholic friends, some of whom are among the most Christ-like people I’ve ever known. I had great respect for Pope John Paul II, whom I considered to be a very Godly man, and for his successor Pope Benedict. I see many positive aspects of the Catholic church despite what I perceive as theological errors.

As a student of the Bible and its first century and Hebrew roots I don’t align with any denomination, nor do I claim the label of “Protestant.” Jesus said He was the Way, Truth and Life, and that anyone who loved others, even family members, more than they loved Him wasn’t worthy of Him. His Word the Bible reveals unmistakably that He is not a respecter of persons, not even the Apostles and the Patriarchs. Everyone is subject to and measured solely by His standard of Truth.

My theology is to love Truth and speak it plainly even at the cost of causing discomfort to others, and without regard to the titles or positions of the people it implicates. When I ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2014 I stated frankly and consistently that abortion is murder, homosexuality is an abomination to God and that I had no interest in winning the race but only to have a platform to promote Biblical values in the political arena. http://www.scottlively.net/the-run-for-governor/

My outspoken opposition to the homosexual agenda around the world has won me the designation of Public Enemy #1 of the global homosexual movement by the Human Rights Campaign, and a bogus US federal lawsuit by Ugandan homosexuals charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity.” http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-grotesque-persecution-of-scott-lively.

In truth, I see Pope Francis as an agent for global government, working in cooperation with other globalists, though I don’t believe they’re likely in harmony about what that government will look like in the end. (I suspect Francis would like those others to be subservient to the Catholic Church.) I know that he is a Jesuit, and that Jesuits have a very long history of political intrigue in church/state matters. Building church influence in governmental systems is their raison d’etre. That’s not necessarily nefarious, though the order has been expelled from numerous countries over the centuries — as they readily admit (http://www.jesuit.org.uk/suppression-and-restoration-Jesuits). The point being that it’s no outrage to accuse a Jesuit of having a political agenda.

In this present American political context, where nationalistic rebellion against globalism seems to be the defining characteristic, it is not unfair to put Pope Francis on the side of the globalists, and indeed he injected himself into this election to defend the global agenda on immigration (as I defined it in my article) just last month: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/americas/pope-francis-donald-trump-christian.html?_r=0 .

In conclusion, I want to beg my Catholic friends forgiveness regarding any genuine errors they may find in my reasoning or statement of facts, and conversely, to urge them not to let loyalty to denomination blind them to unpleasant facts. Et veritatis confortati (let truth prevail).

Prepare for Serious Violence in the Presidential Election

To start with I’m not endorsing anybody. I believe America has been under judgment since SCOTUS ruled in Everson v Board of Education (1947) that Jefferson’s “Separation of Church and State” metaphor had become the constitutional law of the land, effectively de-throning the God of Heaven and claiming the power in itself to put God (and everything worshiped as God ) under its own feet. We’ve seen steady moral and social degeneration of the nation ever since, except for a brief semi-revival under Reagan.

Our presidential candidates and most of the congressional ones have been chosen for us by the elites, and each crop of them has been a steadily less palatable assortment of “lesser of two evils” — None of whom except Reagan took back a single foot of ground on the cultural battlefield while in office on this long march to serfdom.

Under Obama, Cameron, Merkle, Pope Francis and other co-conspirators, the globalists have clearly begun making their final move to a one-world government, using George Soros’ “open borders” strategy and flooding the US and EU with third-world immigrants to destabilize and weaken national resistance, while simultaneously setting up a system of global taxation and control under the guise of a bogus “climate change” crisis.

The moral fabric of the targeted nations has also been severely compromised by the oppression of our natural family social foundation through the facilitation of LGBT supremacy.

The Obergefell “gay marriage” case was the coup-de-grace in the United States, rendering the generation-old “value voting” strategy of the conservative movement totally moot — showing that a handful of globalist federal judges could nullify our every accomplishment, no matter how dearly bought in time and treasure nor how widely supported in the public.

The nation was flooded with perversion within, while already being flooded with third-world invaders from without.

What occurred then, both in the US and EU was the rise of the “silent majority,” that mass of humanity whom we have always claimed to be people who share our Biblical values, but in actuality seek their own personal self-interest first, however they may perceive it. Many of them likely share our concern for family values, but that’s obviously not what motivates them — or they would have joined us long ago in the culture war.

And so here in the US (and in the EU — especially re the Brexit vote and Eastern European border closings) we have watched the emergence of populist nationalism on the right grow like yeast in a lump of bread dough until it overflows the top of the pan — while “social justice” Communism has done precisely the same on the left.

Friends, this phenomenon is entirely unique in American political history! The established political norms and systems are shattered — though many still act as if they still apply, not just among the “establishment” but also among “values voters.”

But this is not unique in world political history! This is a less militarized version of Germany 1932 minus the antisemitism and street brawls (though I think the latter is coming after the primaries). It’s the Nationalists vs the Communists and I think we just saw the first glimpse of what its going to look like at the Trump rallies in Illinois and Ohio: Commie agitators trying to bust up the events, meeting Nationalist resistors not afraid to punch back.

These so-far simply normal and patriotic American Nationalists are NOT Nazis by any stretch of the imagination, despite the historical parallels to Germany, but look at how close the parallels are:

Who were the original agitators in Germany? People forget that it was actually the Bolshevik-backed Communist bully-boys that ruled the streets in pre-Nazi Germany — giving rise to the National Socialist counter-force that eventually defeated them. Unlike here in the US today, both forces were evil, but the Communists were marginally worse, at least at first.

(If you want to get a greater sense of just how close the historical parallels are, complete with the turbulent social undercurrent of “gay”-driven sexual anarchy, read Chapters 1 and 4 of my book The Pink Swastika — here: http://www.scottlively.net/the-pink-swastika-5th-edition/ ) But I digress…

The American left is used to bullying conservatives with impunity because the formerly Christian-dominated right eschewed violence and in-kind retaliation as un-Christ-like, and, of course, the leftist media always gives cover to their fellow-travelers on culture war issues. I have experienced this many, many times as a pro-family speaker harassed and sometimes shut down by leftist, primarily “gay” Brown Shirts.

But the Trump army (again, NOT Nazis by any stretch of the imagination despite the historical parallels) is not dominated by value-voter Christians, though many are a part of it. It is dominated by secular conservatives — the silent majority who have been chafing for decades under the yoke of what some have termed “weaponized political correctness.” They’ve been gritting their teeth and bearing it so as not to risk their jobs or face character assassination, stewing and fuming in the privacy of their homes and thoughts.

But now a mob has formed and it has a super-powerful billionaire leader who never apologizes to the left or lets the media steer him. There is now safety in numbers — vast and increasing numbers — and a chance to push back against the bullies (who, as always, cast themselves as victims and scream “Fascist!” while throwing their Molotov Cocktails and rocks).

Meanwhile on the left, the Communists who have been working for decades to establish their Socialist Utopia on the ashes of Judeo-Christian civilization (with tremendous help from Obama), finally see it within reach under Bernie Sanders (or his ideological successor). They have enormous power and in their mass-delusion share a maniacal sense of entitlement: they believe “the end justifies the means,” especially violent means since that has always been central to their ideology from the dawn of Marxism.

We’ve seen glimpses of this in the black-masked Anarchists, “Earth First”ers, the Black (Lives Matter) Panthers, and the “Act-UP” bullies. These types are in charge of the leftist mob now. They will not accept Corporatist-shill Hillary even if she wins the primary. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/some-sanders-supporters-say-its-bernie-or-bust-155205844.html   More importantly, they will not tolerate Trump under ANY scenario. They will have their way! (so they think) through street violence.

That’s the scenario we face, in my analysis. We’re headed for a mini-Civil War in this election, raising the specter of Obama potentially using it as a pretext to suspend elections and stay in power under martial law. I know that’s an extreme result and I’m not predicting it will occur, just saying that it might.

In my view it’s better for the nation in the short term for the Nationalists to win. For one thing I think the economy would soar, despite sabotage by the left, but as I’ve said many times, secular conservatism when fully implemented is just as toxic to Biblical values as secular liberalism.

Many Christians will get swept up in the populist mob, and be very willing to overlook its flaws and excesses while some aspects of Godly values rise for a time with the broader conservative tide. If nothing else, an effective push-back against Cultural Marxism would create a cultural vacuum that Christians could quickly exploit.

But in time, the rift would grow between Christian and secular conservatives and Bible-believing Christians would begin to seem more and more “liberal” in comparison to the increasingly harsh and punitive secularists.

Remember, the pendulum always swings to the opposite extreme, and we Christians won’t (or shouldn’t) be willing to stay on the bandwagon as it swings ever further to the right.

But that particular challenge is probably a fair piece down the road. A concern, but not a present crisis.

The challenge today is to respond appropriately to the attraction and excitement of the populist uprising. My only advice to my fellow value voters is to keep your clarity of purpose firmly rooted in the Biblical world view, and participate in this extraordinary political season only to the extent that you can reconcile your personal actions with your faith. Don’t succumb to mob psychology.

And remember that regardless of how this election ends, only God can “Make America Great Again!” As far as I can see, there’s no mention by any of the candidates of reversing Everson v Board of Education and restoring Him as the exclusive God of this nation and there can be no genuine, lasting recovery of America without Him.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the scripture says. But the corollary is true as well: cursed is the nation that prefers so-called “religious pluralism” over the First Commandment (“You shall have no other god before Me”).

In the long-term big-picture perspective it makes little difference what human being presides over its inevitable demise, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to make the best of whatever situation we find ourselves in.

###

PS.  The day after I wrote this, the following article appeared on Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

The following is a flyer I distributed during my 2014 run for Governor of Massachusetts.  I believe the ideas presented in it represent an important basis for Right/Left bridge-building:

Understanding Sexual Disorientation: A Natural Law Analysis of Gender Identity Disorder

Natural law is very simply the byproduct of accurate perception of the natural order by a rational mind devoted to truth-seeking. America’s Founding Fathers held this perspective and defined such truths to be “self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

The Apostle Paul wrote that God reveals the truth about the natural order of human sexuality and gender, and about His authorship of it, so clearly that people have no defense for false perceptions of it and actually suffer His anger for suppressing it (Romans 1:18-32).

Even secular Aristotle rooted his invention of the scientific method, foundation of all modern secular science, in the natural law presupposition. His axiom, called Teleology, held that the purpose of any thing can be discerned from its design and function. Thus the purpose of the eye is to see, and the purpose of human sexuality is to bond men and women together in self-contained natural families, which collectively establish natural communities, which makes civilization possible. These are self-evident truths.

The phenomenon of gender identity confusion is also self-evident to any truth-seeking person with a rational mind. Pope John Paul affirmed this most succinctly when he observed that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” But people, especially the most powerful ones, tend to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” to rationalize their indulgence in disordered conduct (Romans 1:18), and consequently western societies have witnessed the so-called sexual revolution smother our former natural law social consensus under a tsunami of irrationality cloaked in pseudo-science.

But truth abides, and truth-seekers continue to discover it easily by simple observation.

The truth about the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) coalition is that all of its members hold one thing in common: gender-identity disorder. And the category into which they fall is determined by the degree to which they deviate from gender normalcy.

In his landmark 1945 article, The Meaning of Normal (Yale J. of Biology and Medicine), Dr. Charles King noted that “Normalcy is that which functions according to its design.”
The heterosexual physiology of human beings is self-evident. The very concept of gender necessarily derives from our male/female complimentary design.

The masculinity of normal men and femininity of normal woman is also self-evident, as is the fact that each gender shares some of the personality traits of its opposite — in a roughly balanced proportion that slightly favors the characteristics associated with one’s male or female design.

Gender identity disorder occurs when a person’s gender-balance tips to either a masculine or feminine excess. The greater the imbalance, the more severe the gender-identity dysfunction.

When the gender-identity imbalance contradicts the person’s physiology (a man acting like a woman, or a woman like a man), the most extreme result is deliberate surgical mutilation of one’s body — transsexualism.

When the imbalance leans the other direction — toward excessive masculinity in men or femininity in women — the extreme is a complete loss of complimentarity, resulting in animalistic brutality in men (the Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde phenomenon) and utterly slavish passivity in women. These conditions are so clearly disordered as to make denial of this fact a form of insanity.

The self-evident solution to gender identity disorder is simply to help people regain a balanced male/female equilibrium. How that balance may be restored, as a practical matter, is the province of healers employing Aristotle’s “scientific method.” But it can certainly never be achieved if we continue denying plain truth in favor of a politically-correct mass-delusion that insists sexual disorientation is good and normal.

###

A more thorough treatment of this subject may be viewed here: http://www.scottlively.net/2016/02/11/the-common-root-of-lgbt-dysfunctions/

The “gay” movement promotes itself as a coalition of “sexual minorities:” Lesbian, “Gay,” Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT). “Transgendered” is a category that includes all people who seek to change their physical appearance to that of the opposite gender from which they were born. It includes both transvestites, who limit their gender alteration to clothing and cosmetic changes, and transsexuals, who have their bodies surgically altered to resemble those of the opposite sex.

One day, while pondering the relationship between homosexuality and transgenderism, I was reminded of Genesis 1:27, in which God explains that He created all human beings in His image as male and female (i.e.. “His image” is both halves taken together). I have often sermonized on this topic: that He created us not just as two genders, man and woman, but that each of us, regardless of physical gender, is intended to have a balance of masculine and feminine qualities. Jesus Himself exhibited this principle in His earthly ministry: on one hand comparing himself to a “mother hen” wanting to protect Jerusalem under her wings (Matthew 23:37) and on the other forcefully driving the money changers from the temple with a whip that he made with His own hands (John 2:15).

Naturally, men tend to have more masculine qualities — task orientation, aggression, risk-taking, for example — and women tend to have more feminine qualities, such as relationship orientation, nurturing and security-mindedness, but each of us has some of both. It’s what allows men and women to understand and appreciate each other and to cooperate in family life and the raising of children.

Society’s failure to understand and respect this principle has been the source of many problems, such as when men scorn their own moderating feminine qualities in favor of a destructive ultra-masculine “machismo” or other devaluation of females and femininity. Consider modern China, where the customary killing of girl babies has created a gender imbalance of 30 million extra boys who will be without wives.

Contempt for the feminine is clearly not the Biblical view, though many professing Christians over the centuries have held it. In the United States, the blame for the rise of militant secular feminism can be laid squarely at the feet of an earlier generation of American men who abused their masculine authority to mistreat women, on the theory that they were inferior. The secular feminism that has arisen in response to men’s failures is equally destructive to social health (but that’s a topic for another book).

The Biblical view is that men and women are equal in value, different in function (e.g. Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 5). This principle is the essence of heterosexuality: a balance of the complimentary forms and qualities inherent in our male/female duality. The principle sounds almost Taoist (perhaps an indication of its universality), but is solidly Biblical. Men and women are made to fit together, in every sense of the word.

From this starting point, it struck me that a whole new understanding of homosexual and transgender disorientation becomes possible. They are both the result of gender imbalance and can be plotted on a scale that measures the degree of imbalance.

The Scale of Gender Balance

Let us envision a seven point scale in which the center represents gender normalcy and the ends represent extremes of masculine and feminine imbalance. Gender normalcy (GN) is the state of having a close to even balance of masculinity and femininity — not a perfectly even balance, which would amount to androgyny, but just enough of an imbalance to cause the average man to be more masculine than the average woman and vice versa.

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————–Extreme Femininity

Gender normalcy itself encompasses a range of slight gender imbalance. We all know men and women who are more masculine or feminine than the average. What makes them normal, despite their greater than average imbalance is that they function according to their heterosexual design. They are attracted to the opposite sex and in fact often choose a spouse whose own degree of imbalance is the reverse of theirs (e.g. a very feminine woman marrying a very masculine man).

For various reasons, including those listed in the prior segment, a person can suffer gender imbalance severe enough to harm their sense of gender identity. The more pronounced the imbalance, the more psychologically affected the person will be. This range of unhealthy gender imbalance encompasses all of the various so-called sexual minorities, which can be plotted on the scale based on the degree of gender imbalance they represent. For example, the most severe gender imbalance in men to the effeminate side is represented in the category we call transsexuals.

Male Transsexuals: Men Imbalanced to the Feminine Extreme

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————–Extreme Femininity

Male to Female Transsexual (MTS)

What defines a male-to-female transsexual? A complete rejection of masculine identity. The identification with the feminine side is so complete that the man will hire a surgeon to remove his penis, replace it with an artificial vagina, and fit him with breast implants: this is a male to female transsexual (MTS). This person (who will always remain genetically male) is at the furthest feminine extreme of the gender imbalance scale. He has completely rejected masculinity and all that it represents.

Female Transsexuals: Women Imbalanced to the Masculine Extreme:

Extreme Masculinity—————( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity

Female to Male Transsexual (FTS)

What defines a female-to-male transsexual? Exactly the reverse process to the male transsexual. The woman so completely rejects her feminine nature that she wants to “become a man.” Since this is genetically impossible, she pursues the next best thing: cosmetic surgery to make her body look like that of a man.

Transvestites

What is a transvestite? A transvestite is a person whose gender imbalance is severe enough to cause him or her to want to be perceived by others as the opposite gender. A Male Transvestite (MTV) will dress as a woman, and a Female Transvestite (FTV) will dress as a man. The imbalance is not so extreme that the person will seek cosmetic surgery, and he or she may actually spend most of their time clothed appropriately for their sex, but their sense of gender identity is disordered and manifests in an attempt to masquerade as the opposite sex on a part-time or full-time basis.

Extreme Masculinity—————( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
Female Transvestite (FTV)                                      Male Transvestite (MTV)

Effeminate Male Homosexuals and Masculine Female Homosexuals

The next, less severe form of gender disorder in men is Effeminate Male Homosexuality (EMH). A man in this category acts much like a woman. He doesn’t dress in women’s clothing or change himself with surgery, but there is no mistaking that his sense of gender identity leans strongly to the feminine. This is the “classic” male homosexual type, in many ways a caricature of womanhood; this is the type of homosexual most likely to come to mind when one hears the term “gay man.” Some of this is due to media stereotyping, but it is also self-evident that a homosexual man acting like a woman will stand out more than a homosexual man with more masculine leanings.

The parallel form of gender disorder in women is Masculine Female Homosexuality (MFH). A woman of this type acts like a man. She doesn’t necessarily dress in men’s clothing, although she might. The social taboo regarding women dressing like men is much less pronounced than for men dressing like women, so it is difficult to draw a line between the outward manifestation of female transvestites and lesbians in the same way it can be drawn between that of effeminate homosexual men and male transvestites. In addition, female gender identity disorder is based much more on fear and rejection of one’s own gender than on attraction to and identification with one’s opposite gender. A woman in this category fits most people’s idea of a lesbian, a slightly masculine-acting woman whose gender disorder manifests itself in same-sex attraction but not in a complete rejection of her femininity.

Our scale is getting a little crowded, so we will divide it by gender, but it remains the same scale for both females and males.

WOMEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
(FTS) (FTV) (MFH)                                 Lesbian Fems (LF)

MEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
”Gay” Bullies                                                                  (EMH) (MTV) (MTS)

The Hidden “Sexual Minorities”

So far on our scale of gender imbalance we have plotted the “sexual minorities” that are most visible in our society, but there is another full side to the spectrum that is not as obvious to the casual observer. This side includes the categories of gender disorder in which the individuals are afflicted with an absence of the gender qualities associated with the opposite sex: men with too little of the feminine, and women with too little of the masculine.

“GAY” BULLIES AND LESBIAN SISSIES

Masculine Homosexual Men, AKA “Gay” Bullies.

Moving toward the opposite extreme of the scale, the male categories are measured by their degree of rejection of females and femininity. These are masculine-oriented homosexual men. The existence of this type of homosexual comes as a shock to some people. When they think of homosexuals, they think of effeminate men who act like women, but, in my observation, there are at least as many masculine-leaning homosexuals as there are effeminate ones.

But these are not simply masculine men, they are anti-feminine men. Importantly, they are less against women per se than against effeminacy — especially in other men. The further one tends to the masculine extreme, the greater his rejection of and hostility towards effeminacy. (In my observation, effeminate homosexuality and transgenderism seem to be a product of childhood gender identity disorder as described above, while masculine-oriented homosexuality in men seems to be a product of childhood or adolescent sexual abuse.)

The first category therefore is the classic “gay” bully, and his victims are often effeminate homosexuals. It is very common to hear “gay” activists refer to these “gay bashers” as “latent homosexuals,“ and I believe they are correct, though I suspect that many of these men are not latent, but active (though often self-loathing) homosexuals.

Lesbian Fems, AKA “Lipstick Lesbians”

Gender imbalance, when it crosses the line from gender normalcy, is not just an overabundance of the qualities of one gender. As we observed above, it is also a rejection of the complimentary qualities of the opposite gender. This results in an unhealthy manifestation of the remaining gender qualities. In men it is most obvious in the level of aggression. In women, it is most obvious in the approach to interpersonal relationships. The greater the imbalance toward the feminine extreme, the greater the degree of emotional dependence on other people, especially the romantic partner or partners. This is often reflected in intense jealousy and possessiveness among lesbian partners, leading frequently to domestic violence.

“Lipstick lesbians” are lesbians who want to appear feminine, but who don’t want to be romantically or sexually involved with men. As with the men who occupy a parallel position on the male scale, the “gay” bullies, they tend to blend into society. No one really notices a lesbian who is dressing and acting like a woman, or a “gay” man who is dressing and acting like a man. These are the “invisible” homosexuals who, if they are activist-minded, often can play the part of secret agents in the pursuit of “gay” political goals. No one knows they are homosexual unless they intentionally reveal themselves.

These women commonly enter “heterosexual mimicking” relationships with “butch” lesbians, who take the role of the man.

SUPER-MACHOS AND MONSTERS, DOORMATS AND SLAVES

Super-Machos

Along with a rejection of effeminacy, comes a loss of the feminine-associated qualities that serve to moderate male behavior. The less influenced a man is by these moderating qualities, the more aggressive, even brutal he becomes. This is not to say that gender normal men cannot be “ultra-masculine.” Some are, but usually their attraction to women creates an incentive for these men to moderate their behavior to be more acceptable to women (the characters often played by the actor John Wayne come to mind here).

In contrast, Super-Machos are both ultra-masculine and anti-feminine to the point of misogyny. They actively reject the moderating influences of the feminine as weakness and cultivate a persona of brutal forcefulness. The best examples of this type were the male homosexuals of the Nazi Sturmabteilung, also known as the Brownshirts.

Many people wonder how the Nazis could have been homosexual, when homosexuals were among the targets of their brutal social engineering policies. The secret is that many of the Nazi leaders were masculine-oriented homosexuals, while many of their political enemies in the German Communist Party were effeminate homosexuals.

Monsters

At the furthest extreme of the scale are men whose gender imbalance has left them without any hint of feminine restraint. Fortunately there are few of them, because they are capable of the worst atrocities. Many of the guards of the Nazi extermination camps were of this type. In our society, such men have often been responsible for mass murders, serial killings, torture slayings, and the like. They seem less like men than like animals to us, since we recognize that a fully human nature is made up of complementary, balancing and mutually restraining male and female components.

Doormats & Slaves

The final categories in the scale represent escalating degrees of the dependency phenomenon in women. These are women who are deeply emotionally dependent on their (usually) lesbian partners or male partners, to the point of neurosis. Lacking all but a trace of the masculine in their personality, they are virtually unable to assert themselves. In the most extreme examples, they live as the literal slaves of their partners. These partnerships often include or are based upon sexual bondage and domination and/or sadism and masochism (BDSM). Significantly, due to the supersubmissive nature of these women, they are frequently bi-sexual, since it is extremely difficult for them to withhold consent from anyone, male or female, who gains a position of authority over them in the context of a romantic or sexual relationship.

WOMEN

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
(FTS) (FTV) (MFH)                               Lesbian Fems (LF), Doormats, Slaves

MEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
Monsters, Super-Machos ”Gay” Bullies                        (EMH) (MTV) (MTS)

Conclusion

Allow me to state very clearly at this point that this scale of gender imbalance is my own invention, based solely upon my observations and analysis. It is not the product of controlled scientific studies, nor has it been reviewed or endorsed by medical or psychiatric professionals. I am not a medical doctor or mental health professional, just an attorney and pastor with 25 years of ministry focus on LGBT issues.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find something similar to this scale in the scientific literature, because I believe these observations are not only intuitive but objectively accurate, but I have not yet found such a source, nor am I searching for one. I believe this scale stands on its own as a reasonable and logical model of homosexual/transgender dysfunction.

In terms of the Biblical support for these ideas, we find them in two areas. First, in the recognition of multiple categories of homosexual dysfunction. This includes 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “…[b]e not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [sodomites], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Note that Paul differentiates “sodomites” from “effeminate” which may be taken either as a reference to masculine and feminine-oriented male homosexuals, or to homosexual and transgendered men, or both.

It also includes Old Testament passages addressing “dogs” (male, probably effeminate, homosexual prostitutes; see Deuteronomy 23:18).

Masculine oriented homosexuality (recognized by its predatory nature) is seen in Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and Judges 19 (the homosexuality-related incident that sparked the Benjamite civil war).

Second, we find a firm Biblical opposition to the confusion of gender, beyond what is implied by Genesis 1:27. Deuteronomy 22:5 reads “The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

As always when dealing with statutory Biblical law, we note that while the strict letter of the law may not always be applicable in a modern context (see Romans 7:6), the spirit and principle of the law remains constant and binding, in this case reflecting the fact that gender distinctions matter to God. This principle is specifically reaffirmed throughout the New Testament as well (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 as to physical appearance, Matthew 19:4 as to gender identity).

###

Postscript: As of the writing of this article I am still subject to a federal lawsuit charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity” for preaching against homosexuality in Uganda. Perhaps the top example of my allegedly malicious hatred of homosexuals given by the plaintiffs and their media and activist supporters is that I supposedly told the Ugandans that all homosexuals are monsters who engage in mass murder and other atrocities. The basis for that utterly false and frankly evil misrepresentation is this teaching, which I presented in lecture form in Uganda

(see for yourself how grossly they misrepresent what I said here: http://www.scottlively.net/2015/08/25/view-my-2009-uganda-conference-that-led-to-the-smug-lawsuit/)

and which is re-printed from Chapter 4 of my book “Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the ’Gay’ Agenda” here: http://www.defendthefamily.com/rtr/

I believe you can always tell which facts and arguments are most damaging to the LGBT supremacist agenda by measuring how outrageously “gay” propagandists misrepresent them. By that standard, this teaching on the common root of LGBT dysfunction is highly valuable pro-family information. I urge you to distribute it to your friends and allies.

Post-Postscript: I apologize for the awkwardness of my attempt to depict this scale graphically. If you or someone you know would be interested in volunteering to create a graphic to depict the Scale of Gender Imbalance in LGBT Sufferers, I’d love to hear from you at sdllaw@gmail.com.

UPDATE:  The excellent graphics at the top of the page were created by a supporter in response to my request.