Steps to defeat a Non-Christian who supports Homosexuality

It can be a difficult task to convince a Non-Christian that anything evil is actually, objectively wrong. Many times certain issues arise in conversation and we don't really know (as Christians) how to effectively respond. One of the most common issues that comes up in conversation today, is the issue of Homosexuality. Here is a guide and road map to easily defeat anyone adhering to such disgusting notions.

STEP 1 >>>> ask the non-believer...Do you believe a God of some kind exists?

A.) NO - Then you cannot accept that Objective Morality exists. If all morality is Subjective, then no action is Objectively wrong. If no action is Objectively wrong, then rape, murder, zoophilia,  pedophilia, and theft are only wrong because it is your opinion. If morality is based solely on a persons (individual) opinions, and everyone has different opinions, then people will disagree on what is truly right and wrong. If you disagree with someone, you will be forced to be tolerant to his opinions, as he has been forced to be tolerant of yours. Every evil known to man mankind will be permitted at some juncture, time, or as part of some society. For example: Person A thinks it's wrong to kill handicap children, while person B thinks it helps his survival rate. Then person A thinks it's ok to rape as many woman as possible to carry on his lineage, while person B thinks raping someone is not nice.  Both are just opinions of the individual. The two people are forced to accept each others differing opinions on what is right and wrong, as there is no Objective foundation or baseline for a TRUE Objective Morality (an ultimate right or wrong). Thus they are thrust into a world of complete tolerance, where every evil is permitted (at some time) and cannot be shown to be truly wrong. An individual will be at the mercy of societal evolution, majority, human error, and misunderstanding.  This position is not only disgusting (as you will purposely be setting a stage for future allowance of things like child rape), but it's also self refuting as you can imagine that you are a man with cancer and society evolves to the point where they think cancer can be cured if everyone who has it is killed.

[[For more information about why God can be the only account of Objective Morality please scroll down to the bottom of the page (notes). If you feel Objective Morality can exist without God, you would need to give me one example of an Objective Moral value or duty, and then explain its origin. Important to remember an Objective Moral value is that which exists independently of any society, time frame, or anyone's thoughts.]]

B.) YES ------>Do you believe Objective Morality exists?

      NO - See point A above.

      YES - Then there is an ultimate right and wrong.  Proceed to Step 2 below.

STEP 2>>>>>How do you determine what this ultimate right and wrong (Objective morality) is??

 C.) I don't know, I base it on my own opinions, society norms, or what I feel it right or wrong - See point A above.

 D.) My religion, bible, etc. Proceed to Step 3 below.

STEP 3>>>>> What religion, bible, etc. permits homosexuality and what evidence does it have to support that its teachings are accurate and correct?

  E.) None, or is unable to present. Send back to Step 2 above.

  F.) Presents a religion, bible, etc. along with any evidence he has for it, and for its teachings that homosexuality is accurate and acceptable. Proceed to Step 4 below

STEP 4 >>>>> (Compare his religion/bibles evidence to the evidence of the Christian religion/bible. It will be shown that the Christian bible is accurate and more trustworthy as a source for an ultimate Objective morality.)

Ask him WHY HIS religion, bible, etc. would support homosexuality, but not support two brothers getting married, a man and his father having sex, a person having sex with or marrying animals, etc.?? Is it just your opinion that its wrong, or does your religion and bible support that stance?

    G.) It's just my opinion that it must be wrong. See step A above.

    H.) It's not my opinion that those other things are wrong, my religion and bible teach me that those other things are wrong, but that homosexuality is ok.  Proceed to Step 5 below.

STEP 5>>>>> Ask him to explain to you why his religion, bible etc. says is the difference between two homosexuals getting married and something like two adult brothers who want to get married.

     I.) Cannot do it, or refuses. Send back to Step 4.

     J.) Shows why their religion, bible, etc. accept homosexuals, but not the two brothers.  Proceed to step 6 Below.

STEP 6>>>>> Their religion/bible has been proven to be a contradiction and presents an obvious moral conflict/dilemma/injustice. A religion or bible that been proven to be a contradiction and present an obvious moral conflict/dilemma/injustice cannot be accurate. Ask him Why do you think a religion/bible that has been proven to be a contradiction and present an obvious moral conflict/dilemma/injustice is accurate.

    K.) It's just my option, the society norm, or how I feel. Send back to point A

    L.)  I don't...You're RIGHT!


Non-Christian who supports Homosexuality - "How do you know homosexuality isn't normal?"

Christian - "The question is malformed and nonsensical. What is true normalcy? How do you know that a man having sex with his own father is not NORMAL? How do you know that a person who wants to marry their own pet is not NORMAL? Was it not the norm 70 years ago to treat black people like sub humans? Does that make it right? If you say what is normal only depends on what society accepts, then based on that logic 20 years ago homosexuality was not NORMAL, therefore it was correct to keep it out of marriage halls. If society evolves, and it becomes the norm to kill handicap children, will you do it because its NORMAL, or will you refrain from it because it's wrong? Then the question becomes, if you believe it's objectively wrong or just subjectively wrong to kill them.


Atheists by definition can have no other choice but to adhere or consent to a world-view in which moral values are purely subjective. Why? Because without God, objective morality cannot exist. This is where some atheists will object, by attempting to present the only rescuing device they have for this dilemma. Evolution!! Atheists who believe that objective moral values do exist, have no other choice but to chalk it up to a slow, natural, evolutionary process. Without knowing it, this is where they actually fail and ultimately cut their own throats.

Before we get into that, lets first talk about what we mean by objective moral values. When we say objective moral values, we mean moral values that are true and independent of what anyone believes or says about them.  For example, Nazi anti-semitism was morally wrong even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought it was good; and it would still be wrong, even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. Objective moral values are values that exist despite anyone's opinions, societal teachings, upbringing, etc. They are totally independent of anyone's views on them. They exist as a baseline/foundation for morality and are unchanging. . It would be the view that all moral values vary from person to person, culture to culture, decade to decade, opinion to opinion. There would effectively be no real underlying good or bad, no true right or wrong , and no objective good or evil. There would only be peoples opinions and beliefs about what is acceptable. Subjective moral values can and do change. If evolution is the cause of our current morality then its not objective, so you couldnt claim evolution created objective moral values.

So back to the statement, evolution cannot account for objective moral values. Some atheists insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. As we have already discussed, if evolution produced human morality then it cannot be objective. Even if common moral sensibilities (don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.) would have helped ensure our evolutionary survival, its still not objective, and there are also a number of problems with such a view:
  1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?
  2. Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan). Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?
  3. Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution was the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered morally ok?
  4. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists). So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong. How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don’t have a moral obligation to chemistry.
The fact is, no atheist can offer an objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others? Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.
(Frank Turek - ID=76&Title=Evolution+Cannot+Explain+Morality)

More examples: If a tribe of people in Australia decide that it's moral to kill and eat other people (as they have done in the past), then the same behavior is now ‘

Moreover, if morality evolved because it produced survival benefits, we would not have objective moral principles & obligations. We would only sense that objective moral obligations exist, but they really wouldn’t. Once we’ve figured out that our feeling of morality with regard to say, rape, is just a biological adaptation built into us over millions of years, then we would have no reason to regard rape as objectively wrong anymore.

(put in the other hypothetical story from my moral argument video)
(add more info here from the moral argument blog, and also how evolution fails to account for objective morality)

So in conclusion we see that in order for morality to be objective then a God must exist. An atheistic evolutionary account of human moral values deny their objectivity. If moral values developed for evolutionary reasons, then they did so because they are socially advantageous. But, if our moral beliefs exist as they do merely because they are socially advantageous, then there is no reason to think that there is something deeply wrong about murder, for example. We only think that murder is wrong because having that belief was somehow fitness-enhancing. Dr William Lane Craig says he cannot imagine what it would be like for moral values simply to exist without explanation. Further, he argues, such an account (moral values without explanation) cannot adequately explain moral duties. This is because the atheist would have to say a duty is something that is owed to someone; but if objective moral values just exist, then to whom are my duties owed? Craig argues that the only way to make sense of having a moral duty is to suppose that someone created the moral laws, and that it is to that being that we owe our moral duties. Presumably, such a being would have to be God. (Dr. William Lane Craig)

Ask the atheist to:



Now that we have a good understanding of the difference between objective and subjective moral values, we clearly see that an independent moral foundation (Objective moral values) cannot exist without God. Atheists by definition deny or disbelieve a God of any kind exists. Therefore Premise 1 stands, and atheists must accept that moral values are simply subjective.

[[You can have a subjective morality that is shared amongst an entire population]] - That is possible, however that would not be an example of objective morality.  If anyone brings up this rebuttal first remind them that if they are seriously going to try and defeat an argument, before they make any kind of attempt, they should at least know the terms and definitions. When we say objective morality, we mean that which is independent of any persons opinions, culture, society, time period or populations shared beliefs.  An opponent of the Suicide Argument who uses such a rebuttal has failed to understand the content definitions and essentially lost before they started. So even if an entire population held the same moral values and beliefs, they still would ultimately be subjective as they would be subject to change. Take the Hitler example into consideration. If Hitler had won the war and killed everyone on the planet who opposed him, and brainwashed everyone of the population to believe the holocaust was good, it would still be evil.

[[Objective morality does not exist]] - We can easily give numerous examples and prove Objective Morals and duties do exist.  Imagine that everyone on planet Earth believed that it was morally 'ok' to humiliate, torture, rape, and murder handicap children when they reach puberty. Would it still be wrong? The answer is clearly yes. It would still be wrong, regardless of what anyone, or any society thought about it. This is what we mean when we talk about Objective Morality. To deny this obvious truth it to commit intellectual suicide.

Is it objectively wrong to kill black babies or just subjectively wrong?



[[Atheists accept a non-theistic objective morality. Objective morality does not required God]] -  The atheist presenting this weak rebuttal has essentially destroyed their own argument and not even realized it...As we've already discussed in detail throughout this blog, objective morality cannot exist without God. The atheist will frequently ask, why can't an atheist accept a NON–THEISTIC objective morality? And then they go on to assert, without any type of evidence, that objective morality does not require God....Many problems here…First of all, the person attempting to use this rebuttal has failed to use the appropriate definition of objective morality. Remind the them that making up your own definitions, in a pathetic attempt to change an argument, so you can present a rebuttal is nothing more than a weak strawman fallacy. The reason atheists cannot accept objective morality (values which are independent of anyone opinions or beliefs), is because that foundation cannot have any other origin than God.  If my opponent disagrees with this fact, they would need to be able to present me with a way in which objective moral values can exist without God. Its impossible, but remind them they are more than welcome to try. Just remember not to let them assert evolution was the culprit as we have already destroyed that evidence in this article.

[[ If God created objective morality then he did so subjectively/Gods beliefs are subjective, therefore cannot be a source of objective morality ]] - This is a common rebuttal that falls flat. Gods thoughts on objective morality are no subjective at all. Rather, it can be saidf that they are more so 'Objectively Necessary', as his Omniscience allows nothing other than the objective moral truth and goodness of every possible outcome/situation to be known by him. THESE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES AND TRUTHS EXIST INDEPENDENT OF ANY HUMANS THOUGHTS OR OPINIONS ON THEM. FURTHERMORE, GODS OMNIBENEVOLENCE WOULD NOT PERMIT HIM TO SUBJECTIVELY ALTER THESE KNOWN MORAL TRUTHS. THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES EXIST BEYOND, ABOVE, PRIOR TO, OUTSIDE OF, OR BEFORE GOD. RATHER, GODS MORAL KNOWLEDGE, AND THE OBJECTIVE MORALITY CODE HE APPLIED TO HIS CREATION ARE THE EXACT SAME THING. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOR DO THEY EXIST INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER. OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS AS GOD, WITH GOD, INSIDE OF GODS OMNISCIENCE GRACE AND OMNIBENEVOLENCE POWER ETERNALLY IN THE PAST. THERE IS NO MECHANISM THAT WOULD PREVENT AN ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING,  omnibenevolent, SUPERNATURAL being, which none greater can be conceived FROM placing his OBJECTIVE MORAL knowledge in line for his people to follow.

Gay supporter (Mike): ANY form of discrimination is not right.
AK: So you would bake a cake for a child rapist that says pedophilia.
Gay supporter (Mike): No
AK: So you would discriminate then?
Gay supporter (Mike): Yes, but only against things that are wrong.
AK: Who decides what is right or wrong?
Gay supporter (Mike): Society
AK: What if society evolves to the point where everyone named Mike is killed because statistics show they are a drain on the economy. More likely to commit crimes and go on welfare...Would that be right?
Gay supporter (Mike): No
AK: So you agree that society cannot decide what's right/wrong and that subjective morality is a self refuting.
Gay supporter (Mike): Yes, I see your point
AK: You also agree discrimination "is" needed in certain instances, as you yourself said you would discriminate against child rapists.
Gay supporter (Mike): Yes
AK: Great. So since subjective morality is self refuting, who decides the objective morality issue of when discrimination is acceptable?
Gay supporter (Mike): Only God could create an objective morality code.
AK: Exactly. So what if God says it's wrong to support other peoples sin? Should you be forced to do it any way?
Gay supporter: No

HATE: To passionately dislike something or someone
Does GOD HATE? Society will lie to you and tell you NO, but the truth is YES!! 

Scripture tells us there are many things that HATES and passionately dislikes...

Prov. 6:16-19,
"There are six things which the Lord HATES, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Am I called to be like Christ? Yes!!

So I am allowed to HATE (Passionately dislike)? Yes!!

I don't see the issue here, other than society has lied to you and told you that it's wrong to passionately dislike (HATE).

P1: God hates people who run rapidly to evil (Prov. 6:16-19)
P2: Homosexuals run rapidly to evil
C: God hates homosexuals


P1: Self proclaimed Christians who encourage sin and set the platform for millions of people to turn away from Gods word are going to hell.
P2: Self proclaimed Christians who support gay marriage and homosexuality are encouraging sin and setting the platform for millions of people to turn away from Gods word.
C: Self proclaimed Christians who support gay marriage and homosexuality are going to hell.



"a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs"

I absolutely detest when self proclaming Christians, call other Christians who judge them, hypocrites. Did you not know....

1.) Christians are commanded by God (in scripture) to judge. If I don't judge you then God says I am the one in error.

2.) To be a hypocrite would be to pass judgment over someone for the "same" sin you commit. For example, if i'm a thief and I keep telling you to stop stealing, then my judgment of you would be hypocritical and unrighteous. Despite the lies society will tell you however, it is NOT hypocritical to be a sinner and show other sinners their error. Furthermore, pointing out the error of a fellow sinner is not only Christ-like and commanded in scripture, but it's how you save souls. Would you not tell your friend if they are doing something you know causes cancer? Would you not tell your child to stop playing with knives while they jump on their bed? We are in the business of winning souls, not letting people remain hand in hand with the devil in a weak attempt to not offend them. If you are offended by my judgement, don't call me a hypocrite, call me a Christian.

3.) If it's hypocritical to be a sinner and judge the errors of other sinners, then every pastor in this country is a hypocrite. Why? Because there is no pastor who has ever walked planet Earth that has not sinned. Yet we see them constantly saving people and bringing them to salvation by getting them out of their sin and onto the right path. You cannot win souls unless you get people to follow Gods word. And you cannot get people to live by Gods word unless you share with them what that word is!!

4.) We are all sinners!! No one is God!! No one is Jesus!! We all need help. No one is perfect. A Christian who judges another Christian (you) is not saying he is better than you, he is showing he loves you, cares about you, and is trying to help you. If he didn't care he wouldn't mind you going to hell for eternity and continuing right along down your path of destruction. Immaturity comes in many forms, but feeling attacked (because of your emotional instability), when someone is trying to save your soul, could be one of the most childish acts that exists.

****I welcome judgment (and so should you). Matter of fact I yern for it. I want to be better. To do better. To know better. So please, don't feel afraid to judge me. I know you are commanded by GOD to do it, and even more than that, I am thankful you care enough about me to help show me Gods plan.


Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

Progressive Community Church Stockton, Ca. is DANGEROUS (Open Letter)

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa