kjvtrue wrote:The book of Exodus, tells about the story of The Jews, God's chosen people, who were enslaved by Egypt, how God Punshied Egypt with Plaugue's, and how he helped his chosened to flee Egypt. This story alone show's that God is against Slavery and Racism.
Incorrect. That only showed how this god was against the enthrallment of the Jews (who wrote the text so I suggest a bias).
In other passages the Bible is explicit on how the Jews should enslave other peoples. Right down to how they should be marked and more. A veritable "how to own, operate, and physically brand your slave" manual. And it as after the whole Egypt thing. :wink:
Now your haphazard linking of scriptures there makes precious little sense. So I'll simply address this glaring error and if there was a point to the rest feel free to address it subsequently.
truth
I never realized that Moses was homophobic.
kjvtrue wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:kjvtrue wrote:onyxelle wrote:I totally agree with Ruach's post, but could never have done such a good job....
I'm not speechless (just saw this thread), but what I will say is that, for homosexual clergy who profess to believe in what the Bible says, and for whom I would hope God is the head of their lives, the very same Bible they teach and preach from, specifically speaks against homosexuality:
Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
This is from one of the books of Law, given to Moses by God. For me, it is enough of a reason to say homosexuality, and especially in the pulpit, as totally against the Laws of God....
"I agree!"
As I pointed out up above, at Leviticus 20:13, the god of the Bible gets a bit more explicit to Moses. The god of the Bible tells Moses:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives."
QUESTION: Do you agree with that also???
"Yes, I do agree with that!"
So, King, you think men who engage in homosexual conduct ought to be put to death for doing so.
Hummmm.
Well, I guess it takes all kinds to make up a world.
I thank you for sharing.
I'll be sure to note where this post is and reference it when I'm being lectured by Christians about Christian charity.
truth
Frank, what about a quick painless death?
JamesMorrison wrote:I am confused. If sections of The Bible and even some Gospel relate that homosexuality is wrong why would some church members, that derive religious legitimacy from this work, now claim it is "OK" to recognize a homosexual as a valid administrator of the faith? Is this the end result of that slippery slope such followers have traveled down past such things as Mass conducted only in Latin, no divorce, and no red meat on Friday?
Church members are now dividing themselves into "Conservatives" and "Progressives" and now politely refer to the opposition as such, whereas in private the use of other terms such as "Old Fogies" and "Upstarts" may easily appear.
Why do the "Progressives" now feel it is time, again, to update church dogma? What is the source of this hubris C.S. Lewis referred to as "chronological snobbery"? Why do they feel our time contains the greatest thinkers and that the social norms of Christian groups in Palestine 2000 years ago are outdated? Is geographical snobbery sneaking in also? Do the inhabitants of the predominately white West feel those in the ME got some of the Dogma wrong? It is interesting to note that American Bishops had their sexual liberalism soundly rejected by the last Lambeth conference in 1998 by bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America where the Anglican Communion is quickly growing and flourishing.
Perhaps the answer to these questions has been with us all along but many still refuse to admit that perhaps the ecclesiastical empirical raiments are not only not "new" but simply non-existent. What can be said of a theological belief based on an entity whose teachings must be constantly updated? Why must the Biblical Truth constantly be re-interpreted by the not so supreme court of anthropic opinion? Even a bishop in Vancouver when he stated, "We have no reason to suppose that any one religion is truer than the others" implicitly hints at this chink in church doctrine when explaining his approval of same-sex unions. This is truly a remarkable statement emanating from a theologian whose beliefs are based on Divine Truth.
This is an excellent example of why simple people, such as myself, raised with Christianity become confused. The "Conservatives" have instinctively felt the problem: If homosexuality is correct now, why and at what point in the past was it wrong? Further, if this one concept were wrong now, surely this would call into question other aspects of church doctrine. Clerical apologists may obfuscate with such wonderings as to "whether some forms of homosexual activity might be open to God's blessing in ways the Church has not previously recognized." and the wonderfully slippery: "It is not a question of whether one can be gay and a Christian it is what is appropriate sexual activity for Christians". (Apparently it is OK to be a homosexual as long as one doesn't commit homosexual acts, but if a person abstains from such acts is he...what?) However, close scrutiny of the situation only turns these clouds into a precipitate leaving only the clear truth.
The heart of Christianity as a belief is simply tolerance. Reading thru the Bible the contrast of the Old Testament's wrath / intolerance towards sinners and the New Testament's forgiveness / love the sinner philosophy is striking. Jesus Christ, whose teachings are credited with this change, must have been truly a remarkable human, maybe even a "Progressive" of his time. Perhaps we might put this simple fundamental element of Jesus' teaching to use here. It is sometimes best to keep things simple.
JM
This is an excellent post. It raises an issue of "chronological snobbery" which I think is at the heart of this debate.
The constant re-intrepretation of Biblical texts to jive with the current political and moral trends is one of the primary reasons I reject religion.
The Church considered homosexuality wrong for 2000 years. This belief was entrenched and well supported with clear anti-gay passages from the Bible. Now, with the gay rights movement in full swing, we have conveniently re-intrepreted the Bible to jive with the current moral climate. Similar fundamental changes took place with regard to womens rights and forced proslytization, for example.
Even the religious conservatives of today are following a version of Christianity that is fundamentally different from the one that has been practiced for most of the last two mellenia. The idea of Divine Truth seems rather silly to me.
I now leave the debate in more capable hands (..or minds).
I don't see it as chronological snobbery at all. Any more so than I think scientific progression is cronological snobbery.
The question is not when and why it was right in the past. It wasn't ever right, it was just accepted.
Just as the people who believed the earth was flat weren't right. Just as the attitudes about slavery weren't right. Just as the theories of spontaneous generation weren't.
To James I would ask whether he thinks evolutions of thought like geocentric to heliocentric are cronological snobbery as well.
It's not a matter of saying our era is right, it's simply progression. Progression is, by its nature, subsequent to its predecessor. On a cronological timeline it will by its nature come after the past that it's learning from.
"Cronological snobbery" is just another way to rage against society learning from the past. But that's the nature of learning from the past, the advancement comes in the present and future.
As an aside, I don't fault religions for re-inventions. I welcome it!
Craven de Kere wrote:I don't see it as chronological snobbery at all. Any more so than I think scientific progression is cronological snobbery.
The question is not when and why it was right in the past. It wasn't ever right, it was just accepted.
Just as the people who believed the earth was flat weren't right. Just as the attitudes about slavery weren't right. Just as the theories of spontaneous generation weren't.
To James I would ask whether he thinks evolutions of thought like geocentric to heliocentric are cronological snobbery as well.
It's not a matter of saying our era is right, it's simply progression. Progression is, by its nature, subsequent to its predecessor. On a cronological timeline it will by its nature come after the past that it's learning from.
Whoa, buddy - hold your horses right there.
If you are talking about
societies views on homosexuality then I agree wholeheartedly. Acceptance of homosexuality is a landmark in the moral evolution of Western civilization. I guess, in that sense, that your analogy between moral progress and scientific progress works.
But we are talking about religion not science.
Scientific issues - such as heliocentric vs geocentric - can be definitivly proven right or wrong. Then society can shift paradigms accordingly.
Religion is based on Divine Truth - the idea that God has provided us with immutable rules for living. Gods word doesn't evolve, it doesn't change, it doesn't conform to our moral trends. It is, by its very definition, eternal and unchanging.
Theoretically, God's word should dictate the moral values of society. What you are suggesting is the opposite - that societies changing morals should lead to changes in religious morality. To suggest that religion can 'evolve' to conform to the ever-changing morality of society is absurd.
Quote:"Cronological snobbery" is just another way to rage against society learning from the past. But that's the nature of learning from the past, the advancement comes in the present and future.
As an aside, I don't fault religions for re-inventions. I welcome it!
I also welcome religious re-invention. However, I acknowledge the fact that these constant 're-inventions' prove just how false religion is.
IronLionZion wrote:I also welcome religious re-invention. However, I acknowledge the fact that these constant 're-inventions' prove just how false religion is.
And in a perverse way -- how hypocritical they can be.
Anyone who bases their objections to homosexual conduct on what the Bible has to say about it has to explain why they are not, as King James is, in favor of putting people to death for the activity.
Craven and IronLionZion:
I was about to respond to the geo/helio centricity thing when I read the latter's post which saved me the trouble.
The main thought behind the post of mine in question involves the absolute certainty of Divine Truth. Implicit in this concept is that such truths are forever held as the absolute last word...concepts of divine law that are rock solid and unchanging. Obviously, if earthly stewards of the faith feel these tenets must be progressively revised, this then calls into question a God, Supreme Being, or Intelligent Designer that just didn't get it quite right the first time. So, if he/she has demonstrated fallibility in one area doesn't this call into question all Divine Truth of such origin? Perhaps David Letterman might start a segment to highlight "Divine Truths that Really aren't True"!
The difference between science and religion is simply that of approach to an idea or thought. Science starts with and idea of how things work. This idea or theory then gains strength and legitimacy as the high priests of science try to disprove the idea. Each such failure is seen as an added support towards the ultimate truth. However, only one successful effort is needed to destroy the theory.
Religion starts with the given Dogma as being true and unquestionable and merely requires the faith of its respective believers. It then actively discourages anything remotely akin to scientific investigation and is adverse to any attempts to disprove its tenets. So, it is the act of progressive updating of dogma that sets off "baloney detectors".
Those who would aspire to the establishment of religion would do well to follow the example of today's professional politicians: use grand and general pronouncements, avoid specificity, and always be hesitant to put things in writing.
Respectfully,
JM
I hadn't seen that response.
Anywho, the example of science was not intended as a comparison of the two but to simply illustrate that prevalence of an accepted notion is in no way a basis for its justification.
The point is that "chronological snobbery" is simply a fallacious argument. It's an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) in disguise.
It's most commonly coupled with an equally fallacious slippery slope argument.
Why it isn't more easily recognized is because "chronological snobbery" has use that isn't fallacious (though I have never seen it used without fallacy).
The legitimate use is to refute a fallacious argument that just because we do things the way we do now it is correct. This would be the opposite to an argumentum ad antiquitatem but I know of no term in common use for this because i have never seen this fallacy in action.
So what I am trying to say is that "chronological snobbery" is just about always a fallacious argument, unless it is used in response to a fallacious argument that bases the validity of something exclusively on its modern adoption.
The comparison with science was an easy way to illustrate the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem. It was not meant for an apples to apples comparison of religion to science.
I will use a different example.
"What's wrong with the world today? We are losing our values. The sin of homosexuality is becomming accepted as a way of life. Feminism is making women try to be men. Sex is pervading our culture. If our forefathers saw this they would be appalled!"
Now all of the above judgements might be valid, but in the above not a single argument establishes (or even attempts to) validity.
It's merely a fallacious argumentum ad antiquitatem. This is pretty much what "chronological snobbery" is.
For example, the tolerance of homosexuals in modern society is not based on the commonality of its acceptance, to reject it on grounds of "chronological snobbery" is to ignore all the arguments about said tolerance and simply make an appeal to tradition.
Now if the tolerance is argued as justified merely on the basis of its modern acceptance it is a perfectly valid rebuttal. But nobody really argues that tolerance is right just because it's more common these days. So that argument does not address any of the merits of tolerance but simply goes for fallacy instead.
truth
Craven, your arguement is very solid.
By the way, Stewie's "I love God; he's so deliciously evil," reminds me of Stendhal's "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist."
I just wanted to ad this, to this topic as well.
God's plan for sexuality
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 2:18-25
The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.
When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve - not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Heterosexuality is the normal method of human bonding and the one for which our bodies and emotions are designed.
If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).
[Editor's Note: Various studies indicate that homosexual behavior makes both men and women more vulnerable to disease and decreases lifespan. See: R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, KJ Craib, MV O'Shaughnessy, JS Montaner and MT Schechter, "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26 (Oxford University, 1997), pp. 657-661. ("If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday") / Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," Medical Institute of Sexual Health (1999) ("Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.") / L.A. Valleroy, D.A. MacKellar, J.M. Daron, et al, "HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men," JAMA, 284 (2000), pp. 198-204. (Discusses the prevalence of HIV infection and high-risk behaviors in study group of 3,492 young men who have sex with men.) / D. Binson, W.J. Woods, L. Pollack, J. Paul, R. Stall, J.A. Catania, "Differential HIV risk in bathhouses and public cruising areas," American Journal of Public Health, 91 (2001), pp. 1482-1486. (demonstrates that high risk behaviors are still quite common among homosexual men).]
What Jesus taught
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:4
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6
When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.
What else does the Bible say?
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Timothy 1:9-10
© Jeremiah Films
These three references indicate that homosexual passions and acts are unnatural, shameful, contrary to sound doctrine and deny entrance to the Kingdom of God. This being so they cannot be the basis of a Christian marriage sanctioned by God's Church. The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation. No marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear - that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.
Are emotions a sufficient basis for marriage?
© Jeremiah Films
Hollywood has propagated the myth that when it comes to marriage "all you need is love." This is simply not true. Marriage is not based on emotion any more than any other partnership in life is. Marriage, like many human activities, involves emotion but it is not constituted by the presence of any particular set of emotions. I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God's sight. It is a beautiful deception.
Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives.
Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more. Sex is not enough. Passion cannot sustain an inherently unstable social unit.
Society, the Church and same sex marriages
© Jeremiah Films
Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community which stands under the blessing or curse of God. Societies that put emotional fulfillment before right actions and principles will soon give way to a multitude of addictions and deep corruptions and collapse. God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages.
I also believe that God will judge a society that permits adoption of children or the use of sperm banks by same sex couples. His Word stands over society and when it is deliberately flaunted in the name of progress and enlightenment, then it is not light but deep darkness that results. We cannot bend the principles of God's Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians.
didn't we just see that exact same last paragraph?
eeyep - actually that same whole cut and paste post.
truth
Yawn.
Tradition is for traditionalists.
My take on this argument is that Homosexuals are not heithens and that they are perfectly fine the way they are
infact in the book of Romans Paul writes some thing to the effect:
all people who go against god and breaks his comandments partakes in.....homosexuality....will be given no place in heaven. but directly after that he also says any...ANY whom believe in the christ the son of God and accept him as their God given savior will be freed of all sins
Edit (MODERATOR): Signature removed. Please do not employ links or images in Signatures
The Sin of Sodom
Serious Questions and Bible Answers about the Homosexual Movement
What is a Sodomite?
A sodomite is a person who practices sodomy--a homosexual. God's word doesn't use such terms as "homosexual," "gay," and "lesbian." Some might argue that a sodomite is nothing more than an inhabitant of Sodom, but God uses the word "sodomite" in reference to homosexuals long after the ancient city of Sodom is destroyed (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Isn't it more proper to refer to sodomites as "homosexuals" and "gays?"
No, because God refers to them as "sodomites." "Homosexual" is a neutral technical term, while "gay" is a nice term that the sodomites have invented for themselves. Due to the constant brainwashing tactics of Hollywood and the Media, "gay" has been adapted by most everyone as the proper title for these people. To be "gay" is to be "merry" and "joyful." To be a "sodomite" is to be wicked and sinful (Gen. 13:13). So "gay" is certainly NOT the proper title. We are warned in Isaiah 5:20 that God is very displeased with people who apply good words to evil things: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Drunkards are not "chronic alcoholics," fornication is not "pre-marital sex," and sodomites are not "gay."
How do we know for certain that sodomy is a sin?
Because God's word declares it to be a sin, over and over again. The very first time "Sodom" occurs in the Bible God sends us a sound warning: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Gen. 13:13) In Genesis 18:20, we are told that the sin of Sodom is "very grievous." Then in Genesis 19:4-7 we read of a case where the Sodomites seek sexual relations with a total stranger! Shortly after this incident, God destroys their entire city because He couldn't find even ten righteous people dwelling there.
Later, in the book of Leviticus, some very sharp warnings are given about sodomy. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Then Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Webster defines an "abomination" as "extreme hatred" and "detestation." That's how God feels about sodomites.
Hundreds of years later we read that sodomites are in the land and they are committing "abominations" (1 Kings 14:24). King Asa, a good king over Judah, did "that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" when he "took away the sodomites out of the land" (1 Kings 15:11-12). Several years later there were still some sodomites left in the land, so King Jehoshaphat, the son of King Asa, also did that which was RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord by taking the sodomites OUT of the land (1 Kings 22:43-46). We also read that King Josiah did the "right" thing when he "brake down the houses of the sodomites" (2 Kings 22:2; 23:7).
In Isaiah 3:9, God makes reference to the boldness of the people who commit this grievous sin: "The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." Is this not a perfect description of the modern day sodomites who parade up and down the streets demanding their rights? Ezekiel 16:49 says that PRIDE is a chief sin of the sodomites. Perhaps this is why we read about "Gay Pride" parades. Proverbs 16:18 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Some say only the Old Testament speaks against sodomy but that the New Testament is silent about it. This is not true. The New Testament clearly condemns this sin. Romans 1:21-27 speaks about the sodomites. Paul says they are vain in their imaginations, they steal God's glory, they are foolish, unclean, vile, and against nature. In II Peter 2:6, the word "ungodly" is used in connection with sodomy. Paul said in I Corinthians 6:9 that these people would not inherit the kingdom of God.
Friend, sodomy is wicked in the eyes of God!
Don't most professionals agree that a person's sexual orientation is of biological or genetic origin?
Yes, but they're dead wrong. The majority of professional people once believed the earth to be flat. Were they right? The majority of astronomers once believed the stars could be numbered. Were they right? The majority of scientists today believe that men have evolved from monkeys. Are they right? In Genesis, the majority of the world thought Noah was crazy. Were they right? The majority thought Jesus Christ should be crucified. Were they right? Listen friend, if you're running with "the majority," then you are on a collision coarse with the Devil! IGNORE THE MAJORITY! Just trust God's word. God says that sodomy is WRONG, so it's wrong. Period.
Besides, there are many professional people in the medical field who believe that sodomy is an acquired behavior. The book, Shadow In The Land, by Congressman William Dannemeyer, cites several authors who disagree with the biological and genetic theories. The following are among them:
"Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is acquired behavior; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." (Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, International Journal of Psychiatry 10, 1972: 118-25)
"Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child's psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth." (John Monday, Sexual Dimorphism and Homosexual Gender Identity, Perspectives in Human Sexuality, 1974, p. 67)
Doesn't the American Psychiatric Association consider sodomy to be normal?
Yes. In 1974, the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. Naturally, the sodomites make a regular habit of informing us of this, but they fail to inform us of HOW the APA came to this decision. Beginning in 1970, the sodomites started invading the annual APA convention. Although not invited, they made it a regular habit to burst into the annual meetings like uncivilized barbarians. Once in the panel rooms they would resort to shouting and name calling, in hopes of intimidating as many people as possible. They also found it effective to appeal for pity by whining about their sad plight, which they compared to racial discrimination against blacks. By much sympathy pleading and very little factual evidence, the sodomites won the hearts of a few psychiatrists and also a panel of their own in 1973. Then after a very effective letter campaign, the sodomites had applied enough pressure to seal their victory. Finally, in a 58 to 40 vote, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1974.
Why not just leave the sodomites alone and let them live their own lives?
Because God hates this sin and He doesn't want it "left alone." Sin is like a cancer: when ignored it spreads. As we've already seen from God's word, God commends those who oppose sodomy, so we too need to speak out against this abominable sin before it overwhelms us and destroys our nation like it destroyed Sodom. No, we should not HATE the sodomites, but we should firmly oppose their sin as the word of God commands us.
Can a sodomite be cured?
Man says, "No, because it isn't a disease," but God tells us there IS a cure, because there is a cure for ALL SIN. God is willing to cleanse any person of this sin and forget it forever! Some people have the strange idea that God cannot forgive certain sins, but the Bible says otherwise!
1 John 1:7 says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Revelation 1:5 says, "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood."
Friend, Jesus Christ has the cure. You can ignore what the medical profession says about there being no cure for homosexuality. There IS a cure, and YOU can have it TODAY - if you'll confess to God that you're a sinner, repent of your sins (Luke 13:3), and receive His Son as your one and only Saviour. Sin is sin, whether it be sodomy, murder, stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, pride, rebellion, or anything else. All have sinned and come short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23) because all have been born with a sin nature (Rom. 5:12; Psa. 51:5). Jesus Christ shed His sinless blood and died to pay for your sins and He rose again the third day for your justification. The Bible says He'll save you if you'll RECEIVE Him as your Savior:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12)
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom. 10:9-10)
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)
Friend, the decision is all your's. You can believe man and pretend that God made you to be a sodomite, or you can believe God and ask Him to save your soul from Hell through the precious blood of Jesus Christ.
