“One cannot fail to notice the inconsistency of those rejecting human rights their rejection takes place in the public square created by human rights. It is difficult to reject human rights without using them.” –Filip Spagnoli – Making Human Rights Real
“Discriminations are never a sign of a civilized society. What makes us civilized is our act of liberated kindness with other people beyond the man-made primitive citadels of gender, race, religion and sexual orientation.” ― Abhijit Naskar –Either Civilized or Phobic: A Treatise on Homosexuality
At one level, it is perhaps understandable that the Church (in fact, a random group comprising an apostle, a reverend (sic), two bishops and a sociologist) should be prepared to fight against any attempt to make homosexual preferences a human right in Barbados. I refer to the back page report in Friday’s edition of the Barbados Advocate, headlined Church decries LGBT agenda.
After all, they can cite any number of Biblical injunctions in support of their position against the practice and, if they would be true to their vocation, they must be equally condemnatory.
At another level, however, this reasoning does not by itself lead inexorably to the thesis that homosexuality per se or homosexual acts should attract the awesome power of the state’s legislative and prosecutorial machinery -considerations that are usually premised on more terrestrial and contemporary conditions.
In any case, there is already some degree of disconnect between these two arms of the state machinery with the legislative provision seeking disproportionately to criminalize acts of buggery and gross indecency even in private between consenting adult partners and the prosecutorial arm apparently restricting itself to the strict enforcement of the law in cases only where these acts are non-consensual, involve minors incapable of consent as victims, or occur in public.
Indeed, especially in the instance of gross indecency, the sole offence that might encompass female homosexual conduct, the definition is risibly comprehensive, seemingly being capable of covering any form of sexual interaction whatsoever between any couple anywhere. According to section 12 (3) of Cap.154;
“An act of “serious indecency” is an act, whether natural or unnatural by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire”
In such a legislative context, the “agenda”, if any, of the LGBT community must be to remove any provision that might cause individuals therein to engage in criminal conduct every time he or she chooses to express him or herself sexually. And the unlikelihood of a criminal charge and prosecution by the State scarcely detracts from the discriminatory nature of a law that is not similarly applied to traditional heterosexual conduct. In fact, this official selective enforcement is itself a cogent argument for the repeal and reform of the provisions.
According to the assemblage as reported, this agenda “equates to “a new form of colonialism because it hasn’t emerged from Barbados, “ but is part of “a global agenda to influence different nations.”
In my view, this assertion does not serve to weaken the force of the local argument given the generally accepted universality of human rights. History has shown us that it takes some degree of geopolitical clout to lead the fight to reverse decades of the unfair treatment of others whether in the context of apartheid, woman’s liberation or the mandatory death penalty. International intervention in a local issue, if it does exist, should not always be perceived as a negative.
The antagonist argument goes a bit further though. According to the chief spokesman, “This is a new attempt to colonize us with certain values and certain perspectives, and if we don’t conform, then the argument is that we can suffer economically, and that we can suffer socially because they withdraw support, they withdraw aid…”
I feel certain that some wag will wish to observe that we seem to be doing quite well by ourselves in suffering economically without the withdrawal of aid from these neo-colonists, and it is at least ironic to make the point about tying financial aid to behavioural conditionalities as we prepare to enter shortly into an IMF agreement.
The sociologist was even more persuaded that the agenda was not a local initiative. She holds the view that the local organizations have no say in the matter of the agenda being pushed, citing the assistance they have been receiving from an internationally recognized organization. Nevertheless, she was also convinced of the small local group’s futility in attempting to change God’s word, “but they cannot ever.” This last is patently irrefutable.
But what is this agenda? As perceived by the evangelical group, it includes an attempt to make the personal sexual preference of a very small group a human right in Barbados; to impose the homosexuality (sic) lifestyle as a natural organic sexual behaviour and not a learned behaviour on the majority of Barbados‘ population; to deconstruct marriage and to reconstruct it to legitimize same sex partnerships as opposed to the Adam and Eve marriage union for the entire population. This indeed a weighty charge sheet laid against the movement.
First, as any heterosexual will attest, one’s personal sexual activity is already a fundamental human right, unless a human right must also satisfy the criterion of another’s sanction in order to exist. Second, it is quite unclear how one could “impose” a sexual lifestyle on the majority of an unwilling population; and, third, as the Barbados Advocate editorial for last Sunday observed, in the absence of any public call for the legalization of same sex marriage in Barbados, this notion of deconstructing traditional marriage is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is none there.
The timing of the intervention here seems clearly designed to detract from participation in the LBGT Pride march planned for Sunday. It (the intervention) may be successful, I do not know. But the legal determination of whether the LBGT movement or the evangelical group is correct on the rather technical point of human rights will ultimately be a matter for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and its interpretation of the relevant Articles of the American Convention on Human Rights that we have agreed to uphold.
Hypocrites trying to hide their own perverted sexualty always find themselves in the bedrooms of other people judging away.
Government at the moment has ONLY ONE MISSION, GET THE COUNTRY FINANCES IN ORDER AND OPERATING EFFICIENTLY, only then can they branch out into other legislative endeavours such as the LBGT issues.
@Wily
We have 26 ministers, this should mean that the government is resourced to have a holistic approach. The society is not only about economic planning, there are social factors to mesh.
“But what is this agenda? As perceived by the evangelical group, it includes an attempt to make the personal sexual preference of a very small group a human right in Barbados; to impose the homosexuality (sic) lifestyle as a natural organic sexual behaviour and not a learned behaviour on the majority of Barbados‘ population; to deconstruct marriage and to reconstruct it to legitimize same sex partnerships as opposed to the Adam and Eve marriage union for the entire population. This indeed a weighty charge sheet laid against the movement. “
It would be most informative if these Bible-thumping members of the moral police force in colonially-backward Victorian-age Barbados could show us where Adam & Eve were married in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down by their modern-day church of latter-day saints.
What the ‘hell’ do these sexual eavesdroppers and moral peeping toms think Adam was doing before Eve came along, with a serpent in tow, to whet his burning sexual desires? Playing with himself while watching the other lustful animals being fruitful and multiplying?
Since this lobby of sexual morality wants to determine as a unified body the ‘nature’ of private interactions between consulting adults then they should be as fervent in a similar move to get all perceived sexually-deviant behaviour on the same morally-despicable footing.
Why don’t they call for the criminalization of “MASTURBATION”, both male and female, as so divinely banned in their Bible of all moral authority?
Didn’t your chief judge of human sexuality, namely one called Yahweh execute the poor premature ejaculating Onan to death for spilling his seed of fertility on the ground instead of in the pubic hairs of his widowed sister-in-law?
Or would this ‘moral and statutory ‘outlawing’ of common self-coming or jacking-off be crossing a bridge to far and they will all find themselves burning, with their own lonely selfish carnal desire, in Hell?
Now Dr. Rev. Georgie Porgie and the Communist Evangelist Socialist Prophetess and Capitalist Diviner Freedom Crier, what do you have to say about this homo pleasuring versus the selfish sexual act of self-satisfaction?
@Mr Blogmaster, in the words of the Dean the blogger @Willy’s made a comprehensive risible retort 🤣…
As you bluntly suggest even with ministers tasked separately with Home Affairs and our Environment n Natural Beautification and then of course having TWO ministers of Housing Lands n Rural Development and another TWO of MTW and of course with THREE ministers managing aspects of Economic Affairs (in an economy generating less than $6B in GDP ) the laff-line narrative takes tongue 😁 that this Bajan crew canNOT walk human rights and chew on finances in the same cabinet… wha loss!
But on the serious side…
@Dean Jeff, this subject is forever painful despite the apparent international acceptance of the basic human right that we as adults can interface with whom we so choose to form mutual consent.
With due respect to the clergy as a group or profession they have long lost any moral right to speak grandly on matters of sexuality and the traditions of marriage. Their leadership failures are profound.
On the matter of the “weighty charge sheet” this group like many others before are not that wrong on general societal impact, however.
We can quibble or argue at length on the impact to a Bdos population of a “deconstruct[ed] marriage and to reconstruct it to legitimize same sex partnerships” but evidence from the same international scene does not augur well for us Bajans.
There is no recognition of same sex unions here but considering the over 60% acceptance by Bajans of LGBT issues how far are we from more common law style same sex partners more readily interacting with children of relatives so much so that the simple dialogue of ‘I had so much fun with Auntie Joan and Auntie Stef at the fair; can we visit with them next week on the hike’ becomes more standard than exceptional.
How far removed are we from living the reality of “I Have Two Daddies: Both Earthly Men” (the original book speaks of ‘An Earthly Dad and A Heavenly Dad’) .
That sea change is a major wave on what you describe as the natural organic sexual behaviour and it is upon us. Those who watched more kids programs in recent years with their children may recall an episode of ‘Arthur’ dealing with gay parenting. Then of course there is the other well known supposedly ‘gay’ cartoon character Sponge Bob Square Pants.
And what of shows like ‘Modern Family’. That’s a profound shock to the evangelical’s organic system surely.
Frankly, I was much more appalled by the popularity of ‘Two and A Half Men’ with its rampant sense of sexual laissez-faise around an impressionable preteen boy as an assault on marriage and traditional mores…
Alas, gay and now transgendered life style are well entrenched in many locales and thus Bajans continued opposition to the International American Court of Human Rights will not uproot or prevent those rights here.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights ..that should read, of course.
Miller..don’t mind the hypocrites, while they are stuck in other people’s bedrooms, consulting adults, the world is very rapidly changing all around them leaving them deep in the dark ages and coated with hypocrisy..
Got a new brew to enjoy in Canada, infused with Cannabis..Lawson is too high to post to BU these days..lol
The oil is potent stuff but the beer made from roots etc…aww
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/it-hits-you-very-quickly-canada-brews-first-cannabis-beer
“cannabis beer
Entrepreneurs across the country are racing to capitalise on drug’s legalisation
Ashifa Kassam in Belleville
@ashifa_k
Sun 22 Jul 2018 12.41 BST Last modified on Sun 22 Jul 2018 15.38 BST
Province Brands
The logo of Province Brands, the startup behind the new beer. Photograph: Province Brands
Scientists in a small Ontario laboratory are testing enzymes and experimenting with fermentation. Their techniques are not new, but their focus is a first. They are developing what is being described as the world’s first beer brewed from cannabis.
Most cannabis beers on the market are brewed from barley and infused with marijuana oil, according to Dooma Wendschuh of Province Brands, the Toronto startup behind the product. “That’s not what we do. Our beer is brewed from the stocks, stem and roots of the cannabis plant.”
It is a story playing out across Canada as entrepreneurs race to secure a foothold in what is expected to be a multibillion-dollar market. The country will become the second in the world to legalise marijuana for recreational use on 17 October.”
God gave us all free will.
He also gave us rules by which to live.
Free will allows us to live as we please.
We can ignore his rules if we so desire.
He made it so.
It becomes a matter between God and the individual.
No amount of legislation created by mankind can change that simple fact.
No one is perfect and no one can judge …. that is for God to do!!
Ah thought I would see Alvin Cummins on CBC Toronto protesting all of this..lol
If these moral crusaders pretending to be Christians since the day of Emancipation cannot get 70 % of Bajans to have sex within the ‘banns’ of legal marriage so that the offspring of their sexual activity can be considered legitimate ‘brats’, then how on God’s natural earth can they expect to dictate what the LGBT community is to do with respect to their human rights?
The same way enlightened white people fought ‘slavishly’ against the enslavement of blacks from whom these same modern-day Leviticus preachers have descended, so too are those with no sexual preference axe to grind in support of those who are demanding similar rights for the LGBT community.
No so long ago it was neither morally acceptable nor legal for a black man to have sex with a white woman, far less contemplate the idea of marrying her to make an honest woman out of her. Such a thought far less the act would have made him an immediate target for a lynching or with a terminal fate like the uppity black boy Emmett Till.
There was also a time, in the not too far distant past, when black people were not allowed to marry in any Church or Courthouse in “Christian” Barbados.
So what’s up with these ‘holier-than-thou-wash-in-the-blood-of-the sacrificial-lamb-of-Leviticus’ black preacher men and women with their slave mentality and mimicking their old white masters who descendants have long put away their moral whips?
Advice to the PM –stay far away from this issue! FIX the problems that effect the majority. Sewerage, Economy and Finances first.
@MoneyBrain
This matter is being challenged in the law courts all across the Caribbean. Barbados will have to refresh existing legislation or see the matter taken to the Courts. We have seen the local LGBT chapter become emboldened by the recent court decision in Trinidad for example.
The miller has pulled out the V-12 this Sunday afternoon and firing pun all cylinders
What is the difference between ” a marriage” and “a civil union”?
Other than the privilege (or foolhardiness) of entering a conjugal state, what human right is peculiarly denied LGBT persons in Barbados? Am I allowed to have anal sex with my wife because I am not a card carrying member of the LGBT association?
@David
“We have 26 ministers”
ALL HANDS ON DECK as they say, if the ship is sinking, no time to be addressing the frills. After the ship is financially secure then other tasks can be assigned and dealt with on a priority basis. Unless the LBGT issue is a MAJOR priority and its critical to the ship not sinking then it should be put on the back burner until the other critical priorities are dealt with. 26 Ministers implies to Wily that individually they are competency challenged and are likely to need all 26 focused on a single task to be remotely successful.
Stealing is against God’s law … also man’s.
Politicians never get prosecuted for stealing!!
… so if they do steal, God has it covered.
Why not remove the statutes against stealing …. or killing.
Interestingly, I don’t think there is any law against being a hypocrite!!
@ John July 22, 2018 1:10 PM
“Stealing is against God’s law … also man’s.
Politicians never get prosecuted for stealing!!
… so if they do steal, God has it covered.
Why not remove the statutes against stealing …. or killing.”
Whose statutes are you referring to? Those of the Elohim or those man-made under the fictitious name(s) of Thutmoses?
Didn’t your god Yahweh put a mark on the white on black Cain for killing his ’favoured’ Chinese and Indian brother Abel and threatened the imaginary world-wide population of the time who wanted to kill him with a similar sentence of death?
Why don’t you called for a statute against war between countries or tribes and then there will be less killing in the name of your god and others like Allah?
“And Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear.
Now that You have driven me this day from the soil I must hide from Your presence, I shall be a restless wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will kill me.
And the Lord said to him:
Therefore whoever kills Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance.
And the Lord set a mark upon Cain so that whoever found him would not slay him.”
Do you John, carry that mark of Cain?
You must be; unless you have evolved from a constantly fo*ping bi- and tri-sexual bonobo albino ape from sub-Sahara Africa.
IO do not have much to add..
I do not start at the point where Jeff began or where he ended. Everyone is entitled to their view, but they are some who will turn to the Bible to justify the enslavement of others.
I do not care who is right or wrong but I know that those who represent the church are often caught on the wrong side of an issue.
Go, sin no more.
So they want to sex in their jobby and want the state to sanction it. Who cares let them carry on .one day coming soon just like aids wiped out a vast majority another epidemic would occur and all those that are advocating same sex marriages would be looking to place blame on govt.
As for me and my household i would serve the Lord
Ya ain’t got no political masters to serve anymore and weak people always have to find something to serve..
Hypocrites abound, the same religious freaks had no problem with slave masters raping hardback men, women and children anally..ya would never hear the Jesus freaks and frauds condemn that, they are very selective in which anal abominations in their minds to condemn, it’s like a disease with them.
if they pay their taxes leave them alone lets get the island up and running properly again. Llike you two harpies havent had it up the ass, Lol Isnt that why you dont go out on windy days because you may a sound like someone blowing into a coke bottle.
Lawson…how ya like ya Cannabis beer, that should keep you out of Barbados for a while.
EDITORIAL FROM THE ADVOCAT
PERMANENTLY FIXED AT BIRTH?
Sun, 07/22/2018 – 12:00am
The current contretemps between the local LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender queer, and intersex) community and the lyrics of a composition from one of the participants in this year’s calypso competition raises an intriguing issue that, unsurprisingly, has not so far entered the national discourse, except perhaps obliquely in the context of the possibility of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. This is the question of whether a male at birth can ever become a female or vice versa, or whether an individual’s sex or gender is fixed for all time at his or her birth.
The calypsonian at the centre of the dispute, Billboard, has been taken to task over his assertion in the song, “Sex Change”, that “there is no such thing as being transgender as you cannot change your sex”.
We doubt that Billboard is aware, but his assertion echoes the more authoritative dictum of Mr Justice Ormrod, also a qualified physician, in the 1970 case of Corbett v Corbett in England. In that case, Arthur Corbett sought to have his marriage to April Ashley dissolved, principally on the ground that since Ms Ashley had been born male, she was to be treated as a male in perpetuity despite her change of sex, and the marriage was therefore illegal and void.
According to the judge, “Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex and not on gender. The law should adopt the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests. If all three are congruent that should determine a person’s sex for the purpose of marriage. Any operative intervention should be ignored. The biological sexual constitution of an adult is fixed at birth, at the latest, and cannot be changed either by the natural development of organs or by medical or surgical means….”
He thus declared the marriage void ab initio (inherently a nullity).
This use of biological criteria to determine sex was later approved by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Tan ([1983] and, indeed, given more general application; the court holding there that a person born male had been correctly convicted under a statute penalising men who live on the earnings of prostitution, notwithstanding the fact that the accused had undergone gender reassignment therapy.
Subsequently, however, in 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom that under the European Human Rights Convention, a test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual. There are other important factors – the acceptance of the condition of gender identity disorder by the medical professions and health authorities within Contracting States, the provision of treatment, including surgery, to assimilate the individual as closely as possible to the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong and the assumption by the transsexual of the social role of the assigned gender.
This judgment spurred the enactment in the UK of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a statute that enabled transsexuals to apply for a certificate showing the person had satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender.
Of course, none of these later legal developments is directly relevant to Barbados. In consequence, the earlier decision in Corbett should remain applicable as a matter of law and lend some support to Billboard’s assertion. Clearly, in light of later medical developments, some legislative reform may be needed in this context locally.
The blogmaster’s position on homosexuality, same sex union and related abnormal behaviour is known to regulars to the blog. As a society we have to signal the values we want to fashion and be willing to defend them. Increasingly we have been washed along with the flow of the popular world view. This may be a human rights matter but the blogmaster doesn’t have to like or agree with it. In the BU household we preach values that respect the role of gender in a wholesome society.
https://www.facebook.com/BarbadosLabourParty/videos/1342494999227212/
https://www.facebook.com/LetFreedomSpeak/videos/865060800368181/
The LGBT activist in Barbados could be embolden by the new BLP government.
Surely there are members of the government who might emphathise with LGBT persons some of whom spent years “in the closet “.
Ask yourself how you would want to be treated if you were born LGBT ?
@Mr Blogmaster, you have rejoined several past debates with your almost ofthand remark vis “As a society we have to signal the values we want to fashion and be willing to defend them”…..A truism surely but taken contextually for the island Barbados it’s an overly grand statement.
Is the concern with LGBT… issues the disdain of the sexual act itself between those of the same sex or principally about ‘preaching [wholesome] values’?
If the latter how then does our society find it so facile to steal at Government coffers, business tills or bank accounts from fellow citizens and relatives but then wash themselves in the blood of God against intimate physical contacts between consenting adults!
It is beyond hypocritical (not picking on anyone as this permeates society] to opine so crassly “they want to sex in their jobby” and then pontificate so demurely about “my household [serving] the Lord”.
Serving the Lord (as I grasp the concept anyhow) means being humane and solicitious of your fellowman…thus although Judge Ormond is accurate that your gender remains in perpetuity from birth he does not adjudicate on what goes on in your head…about what you think and project about yourself as a person.
This is NOT simply about the sexual act but about fellow humans who are truly mentally oriented differently…they are simply asking to be allowed to find love, happiness and longevity of relationships within the boundaries of societal practices/laws: not being refused input on medical care or pension rights or any other rights allowed a regular legal partner.
I am sure there must be Bajan same sex partners living harmoniously for many years and if one partner fell gravely iill tomorrow the other could easily be denied all consultation about their medical condition despite their personal status of long time companions living together.
Yet a husband and wife fighting like two tigers, living apart on and off with different partners and shepherding their five children and step-children between them as the products from sexual affairs would be considered in the strict sense of the wholesome marriage as ‘serving the Lord’.
What really is normal and abnormal!
And BTW re Judge Ormond….a man can never be reconfigured to become pregnant but if he is remodeled in all other ways to be woman, changes his name et al and joins his willing partner then what is normal and what is abnormal in the eyes of the law…can their ‘marriage’ be justly dissolved by the courts!
A post-operative transgendered individual must use the ladies bathroom, not so or if in Bim hiking down in the bush at Maycocks Bay s/he must of necessity ‘stoop down’ to water the grass surely. …so what is normal in this mixed up world in which we are indeed “washed along with the flow of the popular [and unpopular] world view.”
Who are we in our hetrosexual happiness to judge these things as so outside the norms!
Looking beyond the single story …which has proven for centuries to be nothing but destructive.
https://www.facebook.com/TED/videos/10160661025090652/?t=75
Rev. Lucille Baird, who her Bible explicitly states that she as a woman should be silent in church, Pastor Dear, the psychologist and Eliseus Joseph are clamouring for relevance. They should be the last persons to talk about foreign influence. Anyone of the three preachers does pay NIS? Stupseee!
This debate about same sex unions or sexual preference is not generating as much vitriol as before, guess some folks have retired or they are treating it as a fait accompli.
Speaking of sexual preference Barbados has not been in the dark about this issue, wasn’t there a “Queen of the Bees” beauty competition approximately 45 years ago?
@Blogmaster
“related abnormal behaviour”, when I read this coming from you, I shiver.
I was going to tell the learned author he could have stopped at his first two quotations for they encapsulated the essence of his article.
@Northern Observer
We use to discuss homosexuality a lot on BU as the regulars can attest. The blogmaster applied the moral perspective, we get confused between sexual orientation and behaviors. We have a group who are downright wufless and engage in homosexual behavior as a deviant lifestyle. Sexual orientation the blogmaster is sympathetic.
As I understand it “sex” is what is between one’s legs and “gender” is between ones ears. Leaving aside medical conditions which result in a person being labelled intersex, the sex of a person is quite deterministic. It is as Ormrod ruled, a designation based on chromosomal, gonadal and genetic metrics. One’s sex cannot change. However gender is obviously a more malleable condition and one can with effort change one’s gender. It is confusing to me to speak of a trans-sexual which in my view is an impossibility. However being trans gender is quite possible.
It is thus surprising and disturbing that the practitioners of the “Law” who often claim precision in the use of language seem to conveniently indulge in an Orwellian conflation of the words sex and gender. To put a finer point on my concern, are the terms “man” and “woman” designations of sex or designations of gender?
*are the terms “man” and “woman” designations of sex or designations of gender?
“Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex and not on gender” per Ormrod J.
but what of the Gender Recognition Act 2004?
*but what of the Gender Recognition Act 2004?
@Ping Pong, as the Editorial points out, this is a purely English development and has no local application. Buy it does accept that gender change is possible in agreement with your earlier argument…
I am not too clear what it is that the LGB T lobby is demanding from the Barbadian Society.
Is it just the removal of the buggery law which criminalizes the act of buggery for homosexuals and heterosexuals?
Or
Is it an attempt to force the heterosexual section of society by legislation to accept their (LGBT) sexual practices as ” normal”,widely defined?
Have we not as a society always followed the live and let live philosophy quite successfully for centuries without prejudice to the otherwise sexually oriented ?
Why is it that we try to adopt social issues of other societies which we in our own way have long settled ?
@ Bernard Codrington July 23, 2018 7:51 AM
There is one right that they are demanding which cannot be morally argued against.
That is the right for a woman to be the legally-recognized spouse of another woman or similarly a man to become a legally-recognized partner/spouse of another man.
Whether this ‘right’ is in the form of lobbying for the appropriate amendments to the existing Marriage Act or by way of a new Act to cover the rights and responsibilities of any two people under a Civil Partnership arrangement.
Isn’t there a similar civil partnership arrangement where a Common Law wife where (or husband, hopefully) is entitled to certain benefits after living in the same domestic space for 5 years?
Wasn’t it also argued that such a ‘law’ would spell the end of the traditional marriage or deter men from ‘living’ with women and ‘getting free milk’ after 4 years have elapsed?
I would propose that the Constitution be amended to facilitate the easy implementation of the Civil Partnership arrangement into law.
Sections 6 and 23 seem like two good areas to amend to reflect modern-day social realities if Barbados is to be considered as one of the more ‘socially’ enlightened jurisdictions which like to boast about its highly educated and intellectually sophisticated population ‘punching above its weight’ and looking to make its ‘little-village-minded’ mark on the world stage.
We also ought to consider the rights of visitors (our bread and butter customers) from more enlightened jurisdictions. Many of these so-called sexual deviants (from a Christian fundamentalist Bajan perspective) are not only big spenders on their regular holiday jaunts but also HNWIs (High Net-Worth Individuals) looking to share and enjoy their hard-earned wealth.
Let us assume two well-off British visitors who are in a legally recognized civil partnership / relationship and one of them falls seriously ill or find himself or herself in some other life-threatening situation.
The moral and legal questions to pose to the local authorities:
Would the other ‘compos mentis partner be legally entitled to act as the spouse in Barbados?
@ Miller at 9 :16 AM
What free milk are you talking about? Persons in loving relationships freely exchange “milk”. There is no costs involved. If there is , it is an economic arrangement. In which case the law court is there to settle the distributions of assets in a failed partnership/enterprise. I am sure there are already aspects of the law which cover these.
With respect to making emergency medical decisions , beneficiaries under wills,pensions ,life insurance benefits etc, surely there are legal contracts that can be drawn up to deal with these matters. We do these all the time for friends and biological relatives , not so?
But you may be right. We are becoming a litigious society. We use the law courts to define everything; and then quibble about paying taxes and the slow rate of settling civil cases. A lot of these imported “cultures”come with a cost, which we can ill afford.
.
@BC
I cannot speak for those in the LGBTQ community.
They want equality.
Our tax code (Ontario) and many definitions were based solely on a heterosexual union. If my wife (female) chooses to give me a car she owns, there is no sales tax paid on the transfer value. Previously, two co-habitating persons of the same sex did not enjoy that equality. My employer health benefits did not extend to my significant other, IF they were of the same sex. The list goes on and on and on.
As far as your observation “a society always followed the live and let live philosophy quite successfully for centuries without prejudice”, isn’t likely to be viewed similarly by those in the LGBTQ community. A few years back, a long time childhood friend was struggling. His eldest had ‘come out’. He was devastated (after all this was wrong?). In discussing the matter, itself a major step, it was pointed out after some investigation on social media, that 90%, yes 90%, of those persons (nearly 60) whom we ‘suspected’ in our youth as being gay or lesbian or other, did NOT live in Barbados. Is this a reasonable emigration rate for a group? Is this representative of success? Possibly you are tolerant, or really do not care how others live, but I doubt a member of the LGBTQ community would conclude “without prejudice”.
The local vernacular is full of uncomplimentary terms related to non-heterosexual behaviour. At school, there were multiple nicknames of a similar nature.
Today I am left asking myself, what is “Normal”, beyond a setting on my clothes dryer.
In my children’s generation, coming out by age 13 was not unusual. Seemingly, the girls more than the boys, would gravitate between whom they were attracted to. (This is the Bi in LGBTQ) And it could be a larger subset than the L or G.
In my 30’s & 40’s whenever a heterosexual couple split, beyond the just cannot tolerate any longer, one, or sometimes both, regularly had other persons of the opposite sex with whom they had a relationship. Today, that is frequently “other person of the same sex”. Societal norms pushed them into a heterosexual relationship, but today at age 50 or more, they are doing what they want, not what society thinks they should do/be.
@ Bernard Codrington July 23, 2018 11:01 AM
“With respect to making emergency medical decisions , beneficiaries under wills,pensions ,life insurance benefits etc, surely there are legal contracts that can be drawn up to deal with these matters. We do these all the time for friends and biological relatives , not so?”
BC, what do you mean there is no cost involved?
Haven’t you heard about Alimony (pronounced ‘All He Money’)?
We can guess you have been that ‘lovingly’ fortunate as to not to have walked down that financially burdensome avenue without having the pleasure of sipping nocturnal milk with a black ‘cat’ on guard.
If you were to review your massively enlightening statement reproduced above you would certainly have to admit that you have sealed the deal in making the perfect submission in support of the case for same sex marriages.
A legal partnership, whether by way of the traditional marriage or by way of the British Civil Partnership arrangement is the ‘ideal’ method of legal contracting to cover such ‘non-commercial’ arrangements between a man and a woman or which ever combination tickles your fancy.
This fight by the LGBT for equal rights with respect to living with their partners of choice is reminiscent (déjà vu) of the long struggles black people had to endure to achieve their Civil Rights right across the white man’s world.
Why are black people doing it to their own disadvantaged members of society?
Why can’t Bajans and other backward blacks in the Caribbean take a leaf out of the book of that Rainbow Nation called South Africa, the former bastion of apartheid in all its nasty vicious forms of racial discrimination?
Does the name Caster Semenya ring a bell or mean anything to you?
Barbados had always had its ‘universal standard share’ of homosexuals, both in and out of the closet.
So what’s wrong with their legal recognition, their rights and responsibilities; just like any other group of the society and in the same way we should be recognizing the ‘differently-able’ members who were once thought of a the children of the devil cursed and punished for their sins in their previous lives by your god of vengeance?
@Northern, in an backhanded (or perhaps deliberately) your coda makes the core argument @BC and too @Dean Jeff alludes to in their different ways. @BC is the ‘live and let live mantra and the Dean speaks of “to deconstruct marriage and to reconstruct it to legitimize same sex partnerships as opposed to the Adam and Eve marriage union.”
The fact as you assert that our youth feel less ‘shame’ in stating their preferences in their early teen years to live as they wish and our seniors now too feel no more ‘shame’ in deconstructing the hetro-union to join Adam to Steve or Eve with Edina does give the blaring alarm to many, surely.
The Bernard’s (like many of us older folk) are perhaps discombobulated by this outward spectacle of …love.
Incidentally, we can all recall that two girls could hold hands as BFFs (long before we knew such an acronym even existed 🤣) BUT never two boys really.
My point simply: even in its most innocent the spectacle of female same sex partners was essentially always looked upon with less ridicule … but now, as you say what is truly freaking normal!
@DIW
your point is well taken.
As a man, I could spot 80% of my childrens gay friends, I had much more trouble with the lesbians. And there were just as many.
What Does the Bible Say About Masturbation?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it a sin to masturbate?
Is there anything in the Bible about masturbation?
Is it wrong to masturbate when I am away from my wife?
Is it wrong for girls/women to masturbate?
The Bible
The Bible does not say anything specifically about masturbation. However, there is one Bible passage that has sometimes been interpreted as a condemnation of masturbation:
Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also. (NIV, Genesis 38:8-10)
What Onan did was not masturbation, but a form of birth control known as coitus interruptus. Onan’s actual sin was probably his resistance to the Old Testament custom of providing offspring for his deceased brother by impregnating his widow. However a parallel is sometimes drawn between Onan’s act and the wasting of the semen that occurs when males masturbate.
Perspective
Thomas Bokenkotter, a Catholic priest and historian, explains the traditional church opposition to masturbation this way:
Data from the sciences have also severely challenged the traditional condemnation of masturbation, which to some extent was based on outmoded views of human reproduction. At one time it was believed the male sperm was the only factor in human reproduction and the sperm was regarded as humans in miniature. Hence spilling it out was tantamount to abortion as well as a waste of a precious element. Other myths also played a role. Masturbation was blamed for a whole host of physical and spiritual ills such as acne, asthma, heart murmurs, lethargy and even insanity.1
It is now known that sperm cells are not miniature humans; a man’s sperm must unite with a woman’s egg before a baby can be formed. Furthermore, sperm cells not ejected from the body simply die after a few weeks anyway, and they are continuously replaced. It is also now known that masturbation does not cause acne, insanity or any of the other ills it was blamed for in the past.
Psychological data indicate that masturbation is common in both sexes and all age groups, particularly adolescents. It may create a sense of guilt that is blown out of proportion by the taboo nature of the subject.
Church Teachings
Church teachings about masturbation vary. The Roman Catholic Church and some other churches still consider masturbation to be a sin. However, many other churches have accepted it as normal for young unmarried people of both sexes and an acceptable alternative to the very real dangers and evils of promiscuous sexual intercourse. Even some Roman Catholic theologians say that the potential sin of masturbation is not the act itself, but that habitual, compulsive masturbation in adulthood may be used as an escape from normal heterosexual and interpersonal growth.2
Among the three largest Christian denominations in the United States, the official Catholic Church teaching is below. The Southern Baptist Convention and United Methodist Church do not have official statements about masturbation.
Roman Catholic
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.3
IT IS AMAZING THAT THE IDIOT MILLER HAS OBVIOUSLY GONE THROUGH THE BIBLE
AND IT OUGHT TO BE CLEAR
THAT THE BIBLE HAS NOT GONE THROUGH HIM
IT IS AMAZING THE RUBBISH THAT HE CONJOUS UP ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD……..10 TIMES WORSE THAN THE MISSING BULLSHITE WHO TOTALLY REJECTS THE TENET OF 2 TIMOTHY 2:15 TO WHICH ALL SANE, SOUND, SINCERE, SENSIBLE STUDENTS OF THE SCRIPTURES ASCRIBE
MORE ANON
IF BULLERS AND WICKERS AND THEIR INTERMEDIATES ARE “NORMAL” VARIANTS INSTEAD OF ABBERANTS OF HUMANITY, CAN SOMEONE POINT OUT THE GENETIC BASIS FOR THIS?
Georgie Porgie
Did you hear (or read) the speech given by the Anglican priest at the gay pride march yesterday? To quote the priest “Some silly words written in a book thousands of years ago won’t stop…” the gay progress!
RE Ping Pong July 23, 2018 3:27 PM
Georgie Porgie
Did you hear (or read) the speech given by the Anglican priest at the gay pride march yesterday? To quote the priest “Some silly words written in a book thousands of years ago won’t stop…” the gay progress!
NO I DID NOT HEAR THIS, AND I AM HAPPY THAT I DID NOT
WE WONDER THAT THE “CHURCH” IS UNABLE TO MAKE A WORTHY CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY
THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD WAS FOUNDED ON THE LIVING WORD OF GOD FROM WHOM WE GOT THE WRITTEN WORD
WHEN PETER SAID “THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD……….THE CHRIST RESPONDED THAT IT WAS ON THIS NOTE….. THIS ASSERTION ….THIS FOUNDATION …THIS ROCK THAT HE WOULD BUILD HIS CHURCH
AS AN ANGLICAN, I SANG “CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.”
THIS LINE IS OF COURSE A PARAPHRASE OF 1 Timothy 3:15
CLEARLY THE AUTHOR OF THIS HYMN, AND SEVERAL IN HYMNS ANCIENT & MODERN WHICH WE SANG AT CHURCH AND SCHOOL IN THE 50’S & 60’S, KNEW THE SCRIPTURE
FOR A CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN PRIEST TO OPINE “Some silly words written in a book thousands of years ago won’t stop…” the gay progress! INDICATES HOW FAR THE ONCE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF BARBADOS HAS LOST ITS WAY.
CERTAINLY THIS IDIOT IS AN ACCURATE EXAMPLE OF THE CLEAR TEACHING OF ISAIAH 8:20 WHICH SAYS
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
CLEARLY THIS JOKER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT 2 Timothy 4:2 SAYS
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
GP if you think that bullers are abnormal why do you WW and the rest dance to the tune of don lemon , anderson cooper, shepard smith et al and their caustic views.
@ PING PONG
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POST I ASSERTED THAT AS AN ANGLICAN, WE SANG “CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH”– OF COURSE A PARAPHRASE OF 1 Timothy 3:15
PERMIT ME NOW TO POINT OUT WHY GENUINE CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS BELIEVE THIS, AND WHAT EXACTLY DO THEY MEAN, AND WHY THE “PRIEST” OF WHOM YOU SPOKE IS A JOKER DOING SOMETHING FOR WHAT PETER CALLS “FILTHY LUCRE’S SAKE”
First of all, it would be one thing to use 1 Timothy 3:15 to generically claim “the church” as a source of authority or truth on earth as Catholic apologists do when they frequently point to this passage and extract concepts such as an inerrant magisterium, an infallible Pope, and so forth.
However, the scope of the verse in no way supports that kind of overreach. This is particularly true in light of what Paul and the rest of the New Testament says about the church and truth.
First Timothy 3:15 is the end of Paul’s description of proper conduct for church members, including leaders. He nowhere mentions a unique power of these leaders to make doctrinal or interpretive decisions. Nor does he declare members of the body incapable of making those interpretations themselves. In fact, in verse 14 Paul specifically says that his written words are what define proper conduct. This actually suggests the concept of sola scriptura; Paul is assigning authority to the written Word. He does not say, “The church will tell you what this letter means.”
At the start of the epistle, Paul explicitly tells Timothy to oppose those who teach unsound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-7; 18-19). He does not tell Timothy to oppose those who disagree with “the church” or with church leaders. This echoes other statements of Paul that indicate that the content of a belief is what matters, not the person who proclaims it (2 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 1:6–8). Paul refers to those proclaiming the gospel as stewards of the truth, not the source of it (1 Corinthians 4:1; 9:17). Elsewhere, Paul explicitly says there is only one “true” foundation for our faith, which is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11), so what he says in 1 Timothy 3:15 must be taken in that context.
How, then, should 1 Timothy 3:15 be interpreted? Judging by the context of 1 Timothy, as well as the rest of Scripture, certainly not that “the church” has an infallible grasp of truth. In this case, Paul seems to be saying that the ekklesia—the body of believers, “the church”—is the structure that holds up and holds forth the gospel to the world. For that reason, the conduct of the body and its selection of leaders are critically important.
This interpretation is strongly supported by Paul’s use of two Greek words, stulos and hedraioma, translated as “pillar” and “foundation.” Stulos means “pillar, column, prop, or support” and is found in the New Testament only here, in Revelation 3:12, , and in Revelation 10:1. Hedraioma means “prop or support” and is found only in this verse. Both words come from Greek root words that imply something that stiffens, stabilizes, steadies, or holds. These are completely different words than what are used for other occurrences of “foundation” in English Bibles. For instance, Paul’s reference to Christ as our “foundation” in 1Corinthians 3:11 uses the word themelios, which means “foundation of a building” or “initial and founding principles of an idea.”
So, in 1 Timothy 3:15 , Paul is not referring to “the church” as the source of truth or the creator of truth. He’s saying “the church” is what holds up and holds firm the truth in the world. Again, this interpretation fits with Paul’s warnings not to be swayed by carnal philosophies (Colossians 2:8), false teachers (2Timothy 4:3), or any person who changes the gospel (Galatians 1:8). Rather than fall prey to false doctrine, we’re to compare teachers to the Word of God (Acts 17:11: 1Corinthians 4:6: 2 Timothy 3:16: Romans 15:4).
“The church,” that is, the entire population of Christian believers, bears the earthly responsibility of holding up the truth of the gospel. The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. Paul is calling on believers to care for the structure that “supports” or “props up” our message to the world. 1 Timothy 3:15 cannot be taken to mean that the church itself is the source or standard for truth.
@ Lawson
re GP if you think that bullers are abnormal why do you WW and the rest dance to the tune of don lemon , anderson cooper, shepard smith et al and their caustic views.
PLEASE KINDLY NOTE THAT I NEVER WATCH ANY PROGRAM IN WHICH ANY OF THESE BULLERS APPEAR
IF I AM WATCHING FOX, WHEN shepard smith COMES UP I GO TO GUNSMOKE RERUNS OR THE FOOD CHANNEL
@ Georgie Porgie July 23, 2018 2:58 PM
What Onan did was not masturbation, but a form of birth control known as coitus interruptus. Onan’s actual sin was probably his resistance to the Old Testament custom of providing offspring for his deceased brother by impregnating his widow. However a parallel is sometimes drawn between Onan’s act and the wasting of the semen that occurs when males masturbate.”
“A form of Birth control known as coitus interruptus??
Is that what you call it, Dr. GP?
There have been many millions of men who walked Earth while prematurely spilling their nuts and your god never even reprimanded them (far less kill them) for such rather early arrival.
Poor Onan, he could have tricked your god by pretending to be ‘eating’ at the altar of Mount Venus to save his sorry donkey. At least that would have given the frustrated lonely widowed lady a sensation of vicarious satisfaction.
But if you believe in that Onan fable you would also believe that Abraham sired a boy child at the age of 100 with his wife Sarah at a reproductively healthy 91.
So which sin was ‘bigger’ in the sight of your Yahweh? Cain killing his brother and then (unlike Onan) impregnating his sister-in-blood or poor god-loving obedient Onan spilling his nuts on the ground in a fit of pure uncontrollably joyful ecstasy?
MILLER
THERE IS A JACKASS IN MY BACKYARD HERE
IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO TALK TO HIM THAN TALK TO YOU ON BIBLICAL MATTERS
IF THE LORD GOD WAS LIKE MAN, HE WOULD STRIKE YOU DOWN BUT IT IS AS WRITTEN IN 2 PETER 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Here goes the intolerable, bible thumping, Fox watching A-hole now……..
We have to be tolerant of the views of others. A quality that separates man from animals.
We have to be tolerant of the views of others. A quality that separates man from animals.
David i am having a hard time digesting your above comments which brings to mind your indulgence to be intolerant of other people view
I encourage you to read your comment again and see if it fits in with your attitude and diregard with those views you do not agree
Repentance has been the word that Prophets from old to new has spoken about. It is putting away the old self to become a better self, one that wants to do better. They are many things that lead us to do wrong whither it was a friend when we were young whither it was somebody that we looked up to that led us on the wrong path, whither it is our own desires or whither it the influence of the evil one.
We as children of God would want to respect our Heritage. Repentance offers the opportunity for us to choose the path of ‘happiness’ rather than the path of ‘unhappiness’. This method is the way laid out for us that we in time can become perfect as he is.
In life we all make mistakes some more grave than others and we all don’t make the same mistakes that is why the Gospel is unto Repentance. The invitation to repent is an expression of love and happiness and joy and good feelings. It is for us to choose the better way.
This process of self-regeneration is the wonderful method that God has given as his plan of happiness. They are many other lessons to learn along this path but they are given when we are able to bear /comprehend it but it is always for our benefit that we may become joint heirs with him as he has promised. And this method of Repentance we employ and use our whole life.
Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, our Father in Heaven has provided the only way for us to be forgiven of our sins and the method is Repentance. Jesus Christ suffered the penalty for our sins so we can be forgiven if we sincerely repent. As we repent and rely on His saving grace, we will be cleansed from sin.
The divine gift of repentance is the key to happiness here and hereafter. Without forgiveness of ourselves and others in our lives we would constantly be in conflict with ourselves and others. We cannot control the lives of others or should we want to but we can control who we may become by this process of repentance.
The Image conveys the Destitution of our Souls in Sin as we all are and are being offered a hand up by our Creator and Savior.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2a/d6/01/2ad601027a801c2b8bd4e17adb7d1fc8–lds-memes-lds-quotes.jpg
@ David BU at 7 :29 PM
Tolerance is an essential ingredient in love.
Barbados is still a Christian society the basic message of which is loving our neighbour as we love ourselves. Hence my questions to elicit where the society was falling short in its responsibilities. I am not too convinced with the arguments put forward, but if these are the concerns, the society will have to address them. It will require tolerance and understanding on both sides.
As I understand it,an act of buggery was considered an act of denigration in the Middle Eastern societies and Africa in Biblical times. It was acceptable in Southern Europe e.g Greece and Rome around the same period.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Grenville needs to hire someone like Mariposa.
The DLP ran off the field, but like Hiroo Onoda , the last Japanese soldier to surrender, Mariposa battles on.
calm
you aint hear nothing yet
i still have to exegete the 6 proof text passages on this issue
stick around…….you might just learn something
@Professor Jeff “should be prepared to fight against any attempt to make homosexual preferences a human right ”
It is not about sexual preference. i am not a heterosexual because i PREFER to be a heterosexual. I am heterosexual because I am a heterosexual
Just as a homosexual is homosexual because he or she is homosexual.
I did not choose my gender.
i did not choose my race.
i did not choose my country of birth.
I did not choose my time of birth.
I did not choose my parents.
I did not choose my siblings.
I did not choose my sexual orientation.
I don’t think that homosexuals choose these things either.
But what do I know.
i am after all only a
Simple Simon.
It is a surprise to many people to discover that there are only a handful of passages in the Bible that directly mention homosexuality. Yet despite its infrequent mention, where the subject does come up, the Bible has some very important things to say about it.
We need to understand them if we’re to avoid the twin mistakes of homophobia and thinking God is indifferent about how we use our sexuality.
The passages that directly mention homosexuality come from both the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament.
In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul writes:
The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)
Here he uses the term arsenokoitai (translated by the ESV as “men who practice homosexuality” as a catch-all term for all forms of homosexual conduct. Also in common with 1 Corinthians, same-sex sex is mentioned among other wide-ranging sins, non-sexual as well as sexual.
These forms of behaviour characterize those who are not “just” and for whom the law was given, in order to bring conviction of sin and the need for mercy. All these practices contradict “sound doctrine” and the gospel. They do not conform to the life Christians are now to lead. They go against the grain of the new identity we have in Christ.
Leviticus 18 & 20
Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
“An abomination” is often used to describe idolatry, and some suggest these verses are not condemning homosexual behaviour in general, but only the cultic prostitution connected to pagan temples. It is also often claimed that the fact that these prohibitions appear in a book full of other laws which no Christians think they are expected to follow today suggests that they should not be taken as having abiding moral relevance.
But to take the first objection, the language used is not that specific; it refers to lying with a man “as with a woman,” – that is, in very general terms.
Secondly, the surrounding verses in each instance describe other forms of sexual sin (such as incest, adultery and bestiality), none of which is anything to do with pagan temples or idolatry, and which we would take as being applicable to Christians today. It is moral, rather than just pagan religious behaviour that’s in view.
Furthermore, Leviticus 20:13 highlights both male parties equally, again suggesting general, consensual homosexual activity (as opposed to gay rape or a forced relationship).
Genesis 19
Sodom has become so associated with homosexual conduct that its name was for many ears a byword for it. But is ‘sodomy’ really what Sodom is about?
The account describes the men of the city attempting to forcibly have sex with two angelic visitors to the city, who have appeared in the form of men. Later parts of the Old Testament accuse Sodom of a range of sins: oppression, adultery, lying, abetting criminals, arrogance, complacency and indifference to the poor. None of these even mentions homosexual conduct.
This has led some people to wonder if we have read homosexuality into the Genesis narrative, when in fact the real issue was social oppression and injustice. But a close look at the text makes it clear that homosexuality was in fact involved.
Although the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) can just mean to “get to know” someone (rather than to “know” them sexually), it is clear from the crowd’s aggression (and Lot’s dreadful attempt at offering them his daughters as an alternative) that they are looking for much more than social acquaintance. Hence what happens next: the angels warn Lot that judgment is imminent (v.13).
In the New Testament, in commenting on this event, Jude adds an important insight:
…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)
What happened at Sodom is clearly meant to be something of a cautionary tale. Jude makes it clear that their ungodliness involved sexual immorality. They were punished for sexual sin along with the other sins of which they were guilty.
Jude also highlights the nature of their sexual desires: they pursued “unnatural desire” (literally, unnatural “flesh”).
Some have suggested that this relates to the fact that the visitors to the city were angelic; Jude references angelic sin earlier in his letter. But these angels appeared as men, and the baying crowd outside Lot’s house showed no evidence of knowing they were angelic. Their desire was to have sex with the men staying with Lot. In other words, it was the homosexual nature of their desires, and not just the violent expression of them, that is highlighted in the New Testament.
Romans 1:18-32 has much to say about the nature and character of homosexual behaviour.
Paul’s aim in these early chapters is to demonstrate that the whole world is unrighteous in God’s sight, and therefore in need of salvation. In Romans 1:18-32 he zeroes in on the Gentile world, describing the way it has turned away from God and embraced idolatry. The particular details in the passage may indicate that Paul is using the Greco-Roman culture surrounding his readers as a case in point.
Gentile society faces God’s wrath because it has suppressed the truth that God has revealed about himself in creation (verses 18-20). In the verses that follow, Paul illustrates how this has happened, giving three examples of how what has been known about God has been exchanged for something else: they exchange the glory of God for images of creatures (verse 23); the truth of God for a lie, leading to full-blown idolatry, worshipping created things (verse 25); and reject the knowledge of God (verse 28), exchanging “natural” relations for “unnatural” ones:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
Two important and sobering truths are apparent from these verses:
1. Homosexual desire is not what God originally intended.
This is not to say that homosexual desire is the only thing that God did not originally intend. All of our desires have been distorted by sin. But Paul does describe both lesbian and male homosexual behaviour as “unnatural.” Some have argued this refers to what is natural to the people themselves, so that what is in view is heterosexual people engaging in homosexual activity and thereby going against their “natural” orientation.
According to this view, Paul is not condemning all homosexual behaviour, but only that which goes against the person’s own sexual inclinations. But this view cannot be supported by the passage itself. The words for “natural” and “against nature” refer not to our subjective experience of what feels natural to us, but to the fixed way of things in creation. The nature that Paul says homosexual behaviour contradicts is God’s purpose for us, revealed in creation and reiterated throughout Scripture.
Paul’s reference to lesbianism as well as male homosexual conduct also supports the idea that he is condemning all homosexual activity, and not just the man-boy relationships that occurred in Roman culture.
The strength of Paul’s language here should not make us think that homosexual conduct is the worst or only form of sinful behaviour. Paul may be highlighting it because it is a particularly vivid example, and may have been especially pertinent for his readers in Rome given their cultural context. Either way it is illustrative of something that is the case for all of us: as we reject God we find ourselves craving what we are not naturally designed to do. This is as true of a heterosexual person as of a homosexual person. There are no grounds in this passage for singling out homosexual people for any kind of special condemnation. The same passage indicts all of us.
Our distorted desires are a sign that we have turned away from God. It is important to recognize that Paul is talking here in social rather than individual terms. He is describing what happens to culture as a whole, rather than particular people. The presence of same-sex desire in some of us is not an indication that we’ve turned from God more than others, but a sign that humanity as a whole has done so. It is not the only sign, and in everyone there is no doubt more than one sign or another – but it is a sign nevertheless.
Paul writes that alongside the gospel, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:19). Though there will one day be a “day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Romans 2:5), there is already a present-day expression of God’s anger against sin. We see God’s wrath in this: he gives us what we want.
In response to the exchanges Paul has described, we see three instances of God giving us over to live in the outcome of our sinful desires. This is his present-day judgment against sin. We ask for a reality without him and he gives us a taster of it.
In each case the “giving over” results in an intensification of the sin and the further breakdown of human behaviour. God gives humanity over to impure lusts and dishonourable bodily conduct (verse 24), and to “dishonourable passions” (verse 26). The exchanging of natural relations for unnatural leads to being given over to a “debased mind” and the flourishing of “all manner of unrighteousness” which Paul unpacks in a long list of antisocial behaviours (verse 28-31). Sin leads to judgment, but judgment also leads to further sin.
The presence of all these sinful acts is a reminder that we live in a world which has deliberately turned away from God in all sorts of ways, and is therefore experiencing a foretaste of God’s anger and courting its final outpouring on the day of judgment. Again, homosexual activity is certainly not the only sinful act. All of us are guilty of sin. But it is listed among them as one of the ways in which human nature as a whole has been changed from what God originally intended.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Paul writes:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
In these verses Paul is describing different kinds of people who (unless they repent) will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Four kinds relate to sexual sin, and two of those specifically to homosexual behaviour. The ESV takes the latter and puts them together as “men who practice homosexuality”, while the NIV translates them as “male prostitutes and homosexual offenders”.
The first of the two terms relating to homosexuality is malakoi, which translated literally means “soft ones.” In classical literature it could be used as a pejorative term for men who were effeminate; for the younger, passive partner in a pederastic (man-boy) relationship; and to refer to male prostitutes (hence the NIV’s translation). In 1 Corinthians 6 malakoi comes in a list describing general forms of sexual sin, and the context suggests Paul is most likely using it in a broad way to refer to the passive partners in homosexual intercourse, as we are about to see.
The second term Paul uses. is arsenokoitai. This is a compound of “male” (arsen) and “intercourse” (koites, literally “bed”). These are the two words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, suggesting that Paul is linking back to those two passages. (Paul has already just made a connection with Leviticus in 1 Corinthians 5, where he condemns the church’s acceptance of a man living with his father’s wife using language that echoes Leviticus 18:7-8. For Paul, the sexual sins which Leviticus prohibits remain forbidden for New Testament Christians.) Arsenokoitai, then, is a general term for male same-sex sex, and its pairing with malakoi indicates that Paul is addressing both the active and passive partners in homosexual sex.
So what does all this mean for our understanding of homosexuality?
1. Homosexual sin is serious. Paul says the active and unrepentant homosexual, as with all active, unrepentant sinners, will not enter God’s kingdom. Paul urges his readers not to be deceived on this point. He assumes there will be those who deny this teaching, and argue that some forms of homosexual conduct are acceptable to God. But Paul is clear: homosexual conduct leads people to destruction. This is a serious issue.
Homosexual sin is not unique. Paul’s list includes other forms of sexual sin (sexual immorality and adultery), and it includes non-sexual forms of sin (drunkenness and theft, for example). Homosexual sin is incredibly serious, but it is not alone in being so. It is wicked, but so is, say, greed. We must not imply that homosexual sex is the sin of our age. If we are to be faithful to Scripture, we must also preach against theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and defrauding others, many of which are also trivialised in our society, and all of which also characterize the unrighteous.
Homosexual sin is not inescapable. Paul continues in verse 11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
These forms of behaviour are not appropriate for the Corinthian church precisely because it is not who they are any more. Some of them clearly had been active homosexuals. They did once live in these ways. But no more. They have been washed, sanctified and justified; forgiven, cleansed from their sins, and set apart for God. They have a new standing and identity before him.
However ingrained it may be in someone’s behaviour, homosexual conduct is not inescapable. It is possible for someone living a practicing gay lifestyle to be made new by God. Temptations and feelings may well linger. That Paul is warning his readers not to revert to their former way of life suggests there is still some desire to do so. But in Christ we are no longer who we were. Those who have come out of an active gay lifestyle need to understand how to see themselves. What defined us then no longer defines us now.
Attempts to read these texts as anything other than prohibitions of homosexual behaviour do not ultimately work. The plain reading of each passage is the right one. It is homosexual practice in general, rather than only certain expressions of it, which are forbidden in Scripture. To attempt to demonstrate otherwise is to violate the passages themselves. Yet these very same texts list homosexuality alongside many other forms of behaviour that are also against God’s will. The very passages that show us that homosexual activity is a sin, make it very clear that it is not a unique sin. It is one example of what is wrong with all of us.
@Wily Coyote July 22, 2018 1:06 PM “ALL HANDS ON DECK as they say, if the ship is sinking, no time to be addressing the frills.
You caling sex a frill?
Lolll!!
After water and food, there is sex.
Sex is NOT a frill.
Q:
Does the Bible approve of some homosexual relationships?
A:
The Bible provides God’s blueprint for marriage and for His good gift of sex in Genesis 2:24. The gift is only to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman.
There are no exceptions suggested, such as homosexual partnerships. From Genesis on, the Bible praises the marriage of a man and a woman, but it speaks only negatively of homosexual behavior whenever it is mentioned.
The Old Testament states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The New Testament agrees, listing “homosexual offenders” among a list of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” unless they are cleansed through Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Other passages are Genesis, chapter 19; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude, verse 7. However, it is important to note that the Bible speaks only of homosexual behavior (which would include lust—choosing to fantasize about behavior), not unchosen feelings. God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.
Sometimes it is said that the Bible does not record any words of Jesus about homosexuality, and therefore it must be acceptable to God. However, the Bible does not record sayings of Jesus about a number of other specific sins either. When people asked Jesus about marriage, He told them to remember what Genesis said about God’s plan for marriage (Matthew 19:1-12). So, in this sense, Jesus did have something to say about homosexual partnerships. God only blessed sex within the committed marriage relationship of a man and a woman.
Some have tried to reinterpret what the Bible says, in an effort to approve homosexual relationships. For a reply to such efforts, read Straight and Narrow by Thomas Schmidt or A Strong Delusion by Joe Dallas. If you have a loved one who’s homosexual, you may refer to Someone I Love Is Gayby Anita Worthen and Bob Davies, or if you’re a Christian struggling with homosexuality, consider Coming Out of Homosexuality by Bob Davies and Lori Rentzel.
For we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God
Judge Not for what measure of judgement you meted out to others it should be meted out to you
Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and your neighbour as you love yourself.
Do Good and good should be bestowed unto you
Be not be like the scribes and Pharisees who profess godliness but doeth evil
If any of those verses is a reflection of yourself
Then it is time to pick the mote out of your eye
@NorthernObserver July 23, 2018 12:32 PM “A few years back, a long time childhood friend was struggling. His eldest had ‘come out’. He was devastated (after all this was wrong?)”
Parents really need to stay out of the sex lives of their adult children. if your son/daughter is an adult and doesn’t live at you their sex life is none of your bloody business.
@Georgie Porgie July 23, 2018 2:58 PM “Onan’s actual sin was probably his resistance to the Old Testament custom of providing offspring for his deceased brother by impregnating his widow.”
that might have worked for those women in the Old Testament.
but if any of my brothers-in-law came suggesting that nastiness to be, they would get body slammed for sure.
Eeeeewwww!!!!
The book, Messy Grace, frequently emphasizes the importance for Christians to extend grace to people in the LGBT community. That’s the whole point of Messy Grace. Yes we have to be willing to get messy. Yes, we need to pursue others in love, not hate. And yes, we are to demonstrate the compassion and love of Christ. But we must complete the context of Messy Grace by looking at the other side. The truth side.
We should speak with confidence and forthrightness whenever we are faced with an opportunity to talk about what the Bible says on the topic of homosexuality. Sharing the truth in love is important but we should never change it to make it more fascinating for the current culture. We don’t have to water it down, modify or apologize for it. It’s our responsibility to understand and share the truth with graciousness and a refusal to compromise.
“The challenge is living in the tension that exists in the middle of both grace and truth. Yet that is exactly where we are called to live if we are going to speak truth to our loved ones.” — Caleb Kaltenbach
When we wrestle with the tension of grace and truth, we typically either go all the way to the grace side, where everything is deemed acceptable, or we go all the way to the truth side, where we speak truth and have no love. The challenge for us is living in the tension that exists in the middle of both grace and truth. Yet that is exactly where we are called to live if we are going to speak truth to our loved ones.
At the beginning of the Bible, we read that God created Adam first and then Eve. Then we see how God orchestrated the first marriage between these two:
For Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2: 20– 24)
This sets the precedent for what God has established as an acceptable sexual relationship. Now, there are those who see this story as theological fiction, not real history, and so they may resist drawing too strong a conclusion from it. Yet, isn’t it interesting that Jesus himself quoted this passage and seemed to take it seriously as history (see Matthew 19: 4– 5; Mark 10: 6– 8)? The apostle Paul seemed to take this as a real event as well, referring to Adam as a historical person (see Romans 5: 12– 21).
Even if the Adam and Eve story wasn’t historical fact and we were justified in dismissing it, we would have to realize that a precedent was set through this “metaphorical story”: biblical sexuality is expressed between male and female. The same normative pattern of intimacy between a man and a woman is taught elsewhere in the Scriptures. For example, Paul said in Ephesians 5: 22– 33:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery— but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Do you see how Paul assumed that an intimate relationship is between a man and a woman? Furthermore, Paul clearly communicated a doctrine that intimacy between men and women is a picture of the intimacy Jesus has with his church.
Paul did something similar in 1 Corinthians 7: 1– 5:
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Here, Paul described the male-female relationship and gave advice in marriage. He briefly discussed the role that spirituality plays in the marriage relationship and how God designed the husband and wife to be in an intimate relationship together.
When we study the Bible in depth on this matter, we see that it is unified in its teaching that appropriate intimacy is between men and women.
If intimacy is supposed to be between men and women, then what does the Bible say about homosexuality? Several stories and teaching passages in the Scriptures categorically identify sexual relations between persons of the same gender as sin (which means “missing the mark”).
First, let’s deal with the ancient story that gives us our word ‘sodomy’- . Genesis 19 where Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the sin of homosexuality.
the account of this event back in Genesis does say that the men of Sodom were aggressively seeking to have sex with Lot’s visitors (angels who had taken the appearance of human males). Lot called the men’s request a “wicked thing” (19:7), another way of saying it was sinful. (Unfortunately, Lot offered an equally wicked thing by suggesting that the men of Sodom take his two virgin daughters. Let that be a lesson to those of us who think culture can’t negatively influence the thinking of those trying to live for God.)
Later on
in the Old Testament, God says specifically that homosexuality is forbidden. In the context of a whole range of sexual sins, sexual relations between men (and by implication, between women too) is prohibited:
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18: 22)
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. (20: 13)
Other verses in the Old Testament criticize cross-dressing (see Deuteronomy 22: 5) and the homosexual prostitution that was sometimes a part of pagan religion (see 1 Kings 15: 12; 22: 46; 2 Kings 23: 7).
ISNT HILARIOUS THAT A CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN PRIEST COULD NOW SAY “Some silly words written in a book thousands of years ago won’t stop…” the gay progress?
IS THIS WHAT WE CALL PROGRESS?
REJECTING WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT GOD THROUGH THE BIBLE?
Gp you say when shep smith comes on you run to the fridge?? for what a cucumber? a banana ? you do know that gunsmokes Festus was the first openly gay person on television..
Mariposa July 23, 2018 9:30 PM
“For we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Judge Not for what measure of judgement you meted out to others it should be meted out to you”…
John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
We have to be careful in the ways we use our judgement but is never meant that we were never to Judge.
2 Tim 3:1-7 List’s all kinds of sins existing in the “last days.” Among the list are: men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. And the given counsel is: from such turn away.
We Have To Judge In Order To Determine From Whom We Turn Away.
When we use Righteous judgement it means we do so with the Guidance of the one who influences our Conscience. Within that light we can make Proper Judgements… He will never lead us in the wrong direction. If we vary from that Light way we feel it within and our Bosoms Cringes and we know Right from Wrong as Clear as Night is from Day!
What we should Not Do is to CONDEMN others…Christ was our Saviour not out Condemner…however that does not mean we should not speak out strongly about the Adversary’s Ideology and LIES!
In America people have given the Lesbians & Gays the Right to be who they think they are and then they included the Bisexuals and Trans gender’s and then they included the whole Alphabet a-z and now they are promoting Pedophilia and Bestiality under the Guise of Free Sexual Orientation. They have moved even further by saying not only are we free to do it but that everyone should do it to justify their behaviour. Every Prevision is being Celebrated and Fostered on the backs of ordinary people. This is not Sodom & Gomorrah where these people are headed this will make Sodom & Gomorrah look like the Church Choir. Is this what we want for our Nation? Now you begin to see what the UN does to the Sovereignty of a country by having us enact Laws and Policies to suit their Agenda.
It started off very simply just Lesbians and & Gays and now you have the situation described above…Is Dean Cumberbatch going down that road by floating this prevision as Human Rights? In the Eyes of Human Rights everything is permissible. In the eyes of Judge Not least ye be judged we will all be Fools. God did not create wisdom that we may act as jackasses, he created Free Agency that we can act as jackasses and then learn wisdom. So don’t take us from wisdom to acting like jackasses it is better to move from jackasses to wisdom!
Simple Simon Says, “I don’t think that homosexuals choose these things either.”
God does not make mistakes men make their own CHOICES… We are all here to overcome our weaknesses and if that is your weakness overcome it not indulge it!
http://davidfiorazo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2-Timothy-3.jpg
RE Gp you say when shep smith comes on you run to the fridge?? for what a cucumber? a banana ? you do know that gunsmokes Festus was the first openly gay person on television..
NO I DID NOT KNOW THAT
I STILL LIKE GUNSMOKE
LOL me too
HEADLINE NEWS ANALYSIS
America is now very close to becoming the new prophetic “Sodom”! Fulfilling Jesus’ prophecies. Bible scholars have long taught that one of the major features of the Kingdom of Antichrist is that public acceptance of homosexuality will arise again. Jesus prophesied: “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man … Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”
Since God annihilated Sodom primarily for their grievous sin of homosexuality, what Jesus is saying here is that, at the End of the Age — referred here as the “days of the Son of Man” — public acceptance of homosexuality will again be widespread.
Therefore, we find it very revealing that, today, the Western world, led by the United States of America, is forcing homosexuality upon people of all ages and of all religions. This troubling trend is Proof Positive that the world is, indeed, living in the time of the coming “Son of Man”!
Consider some tell-tale news stories: NEWS BRIEF:
“Creating a New Version of Leviticus to Support Gay Sex”, The Stream, July 23, 2018
“What do you do when the biblical text is against your position, explicitly so? What do you do when not one single verse supports your viewpoint? It’s simple. You create new verses out of thin air. You rewrite the Bible to your liking.” Christians who are sensitive to the issue of Modern Bible Translations will be positively outraged and scandalized by the most current misuse of Scripture (although modern translators are not translating with the objective of convincing people to sin).
What does this current effort entail? “In his New York Times op-ed piece, Dr. Dershowitz … claims that ‘Before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex whether between men or women were practically unheard-of in the ancient world’. And he believes that Leviticus was ‘created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer’.” Now that this false teacher has gone this far, he feels free to blatantly write whatever Scripture he wants to; and, since his desire is to legitimize homosexuality, he boldly rewrites Sacred Text: ”
He then argues that “an earlier edition of Leviticus & may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.” (Note carefully: He means a non-existent edition of Leviticus. A Leviticus that is the figment of his own imagination. A Leviticus without a shred of textual, manuscript support in any ancient language at any period of time.) Not only so, but Dr. Dershowitz even claims that ‘there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men’.”
But, of course, this false teacher does not produce an ‘earlier edition of Leviticus’ because there is none! Listen now to this refutation of Dershowitz’s blatant heresy.
“Let’s remember that:
1) There is not one positive word in the Bible about homosexual practice.
2) Every reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative.
3) Every scriptural example of marriage and family is heterosexual.”
Here is the bottom line in defending the original Biblical Leviticus: “That means that for all those who hold these texts to be God’s Word, the matter has long been settled. Homosexual practice is forbidden by God, but there is the possibility of forgiveness, redemption, and new life for all who put their trust in the Redeemer.” This book featured above, “Love Unto Light”, provides the message that people caught up in homosexuality need to hear! This message provides unique hope and deliverance. Pastor Peter Hubbard reveals that, at the end of the matter, homosexuals are sinners and need to be saved by the same wonderful Gospel of Jesus Christ that any other kind of sinner needs.
Dealing with homosexuality as a sin liberates the person caught up in this behavior, because sin can be repented and forgiven just like the sin of greed, murder, theft, etc. Gays are told repeatedly that they cannot help their sexual orientation, that they were born that way; understanding that homosexuality is sin is totally liberating because Jesus came to save sinners!
Liberal Baptist chuch-goer, former President Jimmy Carter threw gasoline on this fiery subject:
NEWS BRIEF: “Former President Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage”, Breitbart News,
9 July 2018
“Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Sunday that Jesus would approve of gay marriage and certain abortions in an interview with HuffPost Live. Speaking of his faith, Mr. Carter said in his career as a politician he never ran across ‘any really serious conflicts between my political obligations and my religious faith’.”
This false analogy is similar to that expressed by Adolf Hitler when he said that everything he did, he did it with a “clear conscience”! Therefore, his genocidal program which killed 6 million Jews and 12 million other “devalued persons” was carried out with a clear conscience.
“Regarding whether he thinks Jesus would approve of gay marriage, Carter replied ‘I don’t have any verse in Scripture’, but added, ‘I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else’, he said.”
This line of reasoning is precisely that of the LGBT-Q argument.
Gay apologists then take a huge leap into the Abyss by saying that this lack of specific condemnation means that Jesus did not oppose homosexuality. These LGBT-Q then take specific aim at the Apostle Paul by stating that he was expressing a personal belief that Jesus would not support.
Southern Baptist evangelist, Franklin Graham, (Son of deceased world evangelist: Billy Graham) disagrees with Jimmy Carter and says so:
NEWS BRIEF: “Franklin Graham Responds to Jimmy Carter’s Claim That Jesus Would Approve of Gay ‘Marriage’ ,
The Stream, July 14 , 2018
“Graham addressed Carter’s statement in a Facebook post Tuesday. Graham said he would ‘respectfully disagree’ with the former president. Graham posted: ‘He is absolutely wrong when he said Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Jesus didn’t come to promote sin, He came to save us from sin. The Bible is very clear. God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality.”
Franklin then quotes he warning against homosexuality found in Romans 1:24-27, an argument which will be automatically rejected by homosexuals because LGBT-Q apologists have already thoroughly discredited Paul’s writings.
However, Jesus did make more than one statement which should forever demolish the idea that He did not oppose homosexuality. Our Savior said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 17:17-18, KJV) Jesus’ statement here means that He supports every single law of the Old Testament. And, this truth brings us squarely back to Leviticus!
Further, in the Book of Revelation (authored by Jesus Christ, the Omega and the Alpha, the First and Last) given to the Apostle John as a vision while he John was on the Isle of Patmos:
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
For those of you not familiar with the Leviticus passage which ties into the word abominable above:
Leviticus 18:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Can you see why gay apologists so badly want to recreate the Book of Leviticus?
Excellent Scriptural and Practical Comments by Dr. Georgie Porgie and Beautiful Beige…To Which I will Add to those who Wrest the Word of God to Suite their Narrative and Sinful ways…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/38/f6/5738f61479c157e1cc8952022292c165.jpg
Thank you Freedom Crier. We are like “voices crying in the wilderness” “Prepare ye the way of the Lord”.
Matthew 18:16 – But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Hope you are Listening Dean Cumberbatch!
WHEN BELIEFS CHANGE
Many of us believe in Jesus and in the reliability of the Bible. We were taught from a young age what the Bible says about how to live our lives. We know what’s right and wrong. We know what God values. But when it comes to upholding those values, we falter.
It’s not hard to hold to biblical beliefs when we are in the comfort of Sunday school rooms with flannel graphs. But then we get into the world and things are different. We go to schools and jobs and we’re confronted with people who have differing world views on many issues.
It’s so easy to lie about our beliefs, not be truthful, or maybe even change our beliefs. It’s incredibly easy to change when it seems the entire world is saying that homosexuality is good, natural, loving, and okay. It’s easy to go with the changing tide, and it’s difficult to go against popular belief and be labeled as hateful or bigoted.
A lot of people I know have had friends and family members who have come out to them, and they don’t know what to do. They know what the Bible has to say about actively being in a same-sex relationship, but they don’t know how to reconcile that with their friendships. As a matter of fact, I can bet that most Christians I know who have changed their view on this tender issue have done so because someone they love came out to them.
When people we love come to us and tell us about a part of their life that is out of line with Scripture, we have some choices: We can kick them out of our life. We can ignore it. We can change our beliefs so there’s no tension between us. Or we can keep loving them and hold our beliefs firm.
For me, the last option has always worked the best.
We live in a time when we will be called bigots and narrow-minded for holding on to what we believe the Bible says. I say, “So be it.” Remember that when we live in the tension of grace and truth, there will be times when we side with grace and seem overly gracious. Then when we side with the truth of an issue, those same people who thought we were too gracious may now think we’re too strict. If that seems confusing and maybe even a bit uncomfortable, that means you’re starting to understand how the tension is necessary to walk in and harder than simply always siding with grace or truth.
I believe the tension proves that you can’t have real grace without truth, and you can’t have real truth without grace. In this instance, we’re leaning heavily on the truth side.
We can and must hold true to what we believe God’s Word says on any issue, including this one. It is possible to love others and not agree with areas in which they live their life. It is possible to be like Jesus, stay committed to God’s way, and still be a light in their life. There’s no reason believers should change orthodox beliefs on what Scripture says in order to keep a relationship with another person.
People say, “I don’t think that homosexuals or Pedophiles choose these things either they are born that way”…now they are promoting Pedophilia and Bestiality under the Guise of Free Sexual Orientation. They have moved even further by saying not only are we free to do it but that everyone should do it to justify their behaviour….This is not Sodom & Gomorrah where these people are headed this will make Sodom & Gomorrah look like the Church Choir.
God does not make mistakes men make their own CHOICES… We are all here to overcome our weaknesses and if that is your weakness overcome it not indulge it!
Hear TEDx PROMOTES PEDOPHILIA
https://www.facebook.com/stfnews/videos/1891677094242725/
A popular pastor said, “Facebook is blocking almost everyone from seeing John 3:16, ‘The Old Rugged Cross,’ the resurrection of Jesus Christ and my other posts.” Pastor Steven Andrew has a sizeable audience, with 467,000 people liking his page. Yet, Facebook showed these posts to only hundreds of people each. (The number will be higher with media coverage.)
Andrew said, ‘I am being silenced by Facebook. Christianity is being silenced!”
“These posts are filled with God’s forgiveness and truth, which are the greatest message of love,” he said.
Andrew is called the “Facebook pastor” and spent thousands of dollars with Facebook advertising to build up the followers. Before the censoring, he reached 5 to 8 million people per month, with an average post going to 30,000 to 60,000 people. Some posts reached a million people. However, after Facebook said they were cracking down on fake news in 2016, they shadowbanned Andrew, blocking about 5 million people per month.
“Christianity is not fake news,” he said.
Andrew contacted Facebook about the censoring earlier, but they did nothing. He also requested Facebook remove the fake accounts impersonating him that scam followers for money, but Facebook refused. There are over 70 impersonating accounts.
Andrew said, “Facebook caused a loss millions of dollars in donations and the ability to grow my website traffic.”