What Would Jesus Do?

Examining the Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Gen. James Green

T HE HOMOSEXUALS just don't get it! They are determined to call God a liar, as well as all of us who know what the Bible says on this same-sex marriage thing (S-SM is an acronym for same-sex marriage).

To start this Bible study, I will present to our readers the following letter printed in a local Maine newspaper (it was sent to me by an old friend, Jim Cote, of the same state). Maine will vote on "gay marriage," Nov. 2012:

“The authors of the Old Testament did indeed believe homosexuality was wrong, but your recent letter writer should keep reading (‘Someone's missing Bible facts on same-sex marriage,’ July 4).

The authors of the Old Testament also believed that raped women should marry their rapists, that disrespectful children should be stoned to death, and that thousands of innocent men, women, and children who worshiped ‘other’ gods should be slaughtered ‘without mercy.’ In Leviticus, these same authors tell us that it's OK to enslave people of ‘lesser races,’ as long as they're not Israelites.

What kind of moral compass are we navigating by here?

In America, we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Not everybody believes in the Old Testament, nor should they be made to.

To restrict someone's rights, you must show good reason to do so. A religious admonition written thousands of years ago by clerics who thought it perfectly reasonable to kill someone for collecting wood on the Sabbath (Moses and his accomplices) is hardly sufficient.

The letter writer needs to know that Jesus said nothing about homosexuals.

He did, however, have some strong words against divorce. But is there any Church out there trying to stop divorcees from marrying again?

What would Jesus do? I know what he wouldn't do. He wouldn't try to disguise his prejudice behind a fig leaf of archaic Bible quotes." Marc, South Portland, Maine.

Marc starts out his letter not telling his readers what the Old Testament authors emphatically had to say about homosexuality. But let me educate our readers here about Leviticus 18:22: "Don't lie with a man as with a woman; it is ABOMINABLE" (Eph. mine), taken from An American Translation (AAT). The King James version reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." Marc merely states that homosexuality is merely "wrong." He makes no mention (of course) that not only is same-sex sex (S-SS) an ABOMINATION (Heb. "tow ‘ebah"= "something disgusting, an abhorrence"). Again, he cheats his readers by not telling them that this ABOMINATION carried the DEATH penalty as Lev. 18:29 tells us: "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations (read the list found in cpt. 18), even the souls that commit them shall be CUT OFF from among their people." This "cutting off" can refer to excommunication or killing!

Does homosexuality carry the death penalty? Try this verse buddy Marc: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both (same-sexers) of them have committed an abomination: they shall SURELY be put to DEATH” (Lev. 20:13).

The word also refers to the sins of witchcraft, idolatry, adultery, incest, etc. (see 20:1-12). Our cheating buddy mentions the death penalty for those "disrespectful children," found, mind you, in Lev. 20:9. Did our buddy miss verse 13 on purpose? Sure! He also mentions incorrectly that "thousands of innocent men, women, and children who worshiped 'other' gods should be slaughtered 'without mercy.'" INNOCENT? THAT IS OXYMORONIC! Those people he described—"idol worshippers," were not innocent. Idolatry also carried the death penalty. Marc's Bible exegesis is skewed.

Greater and Lesser Sins

I HAVE DEALT with this subject in other articles. The Bible distinguishes between sins that deserve the death penalty (even some that are unforgivable!), and sins that do not. Marc did not inform his readers that adultery (found only one verse below his "death to disrespectful children"), v. 10, carried the death penalty (see also 18:20). Nor did buddy Marc mention Lev. 18:23, one verse, the homo verse: "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie (have sex!) down thereto..." He, no doubt, forgot to mention this, for many sex-perverts do just that. It is called bestiality. Are we not hearing about the "right" to have sex with beasts?

The KJV uses "confusion." In verse 23, AAT uses, "perversion"—"Don't have intercourse with any animal and become unclean with it; and a woman must not offer herself to an animal for intercourse; it is PERVERSION."

IT WAS BECAUSE ALL THIS UNCLEAN SEXING (AND OTHER SINS) THAT GOD DESTROYED THE PEOPLE IN THE LAND THAT ISRAEL WAS TO INHERIT (see Lev. 18:27-30).

If...

IF OUR SKEWED buddy would honestly study God's Word, and not cheat!, he would not have a leg to stand on concerning S-SS or any other "pet sin."

Some prohibitions found in the Old Testament were abrogated upon the arrival of the N.T. covenant.

Our misguided buddy mentions those killed by clerics for "collecting wood on the Sabbath." We never hear of God ordering Sabbath keeping for any nation / tribe, other than Israel. Nor were pagans killed for breaking it; it was for ISRAEL ONLY, FOR THOSE DAYS, FOR GOD'S PURPOSE. BUT, ALL OTHER 9 COMMANDMENTS (SEE EX. 20) ARE FOUND BINDING IN OUR N.T. ERA. The Sabbath is missing. Some try to tell us it is still binding, but it is not so (write for our 50 page booklet refuting the ideology of the N.T. Sabbath keeping).

Jesus and Homosexuality

I GROW WEARY of pointing out our opponent’s argument that "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality / homosexuals." Our misguided buddy asks, "What kind of moral compass are we navigating by here?" A very "BIBLICALLY CORRECT" one, dear Marc.

Please don't push this American Constitution stuff off on us. God's Word stands sure. Although much of the Israelite do's and don'ts have been abrogated, God's eternal laws never were. Adultery, idolatry, witchcraft, homosexuality, lesbianism, murder etc. are still BINDING upon ALL Nations for ALL TIME!! Accept it or reject it; they still remain today.

Before there was an America, there was God/His Word. I do agree with his one point—the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion. But above this, God's eternal laws stand, not America's. I, for one, do not believe that we should FORCE everyone to believe/accept the Christian faith. We believe in presenting it as a higher way of life, but it still remains each individual's choice. However, we MUST WARN men of the consequences of breaking His laws.

It is Marc's hang-up about "a religious admonition written thousands of years ago by clerics..." What do you suppose we walk/live by? Political Correctness? HA! Maybe sheer "human freedom?" If so, what will you do with those who believe (and they are not all Christians!) in killing all queers? Would not this be their "human right?" What about any sin (wrong as Marc calls it)? Do we really want a society where all men do as their consciences dictate? What standard shall a nation survive by?

What about raping small/young children? Leave it up to skewed people like Marc...and nations would disappear.

Question/Answer

OUR CRITIC, who does not have the slightest clue of what Jesus would and would not do, asks, "What would Jesus do?" He answers by telling us, "He wouldn't try to disguise his prejudice behind a fig leaf of archaic Bible quotes." I might ask, what Bible quotes? Since our buddy lets all of us know that, "Jesus said nothing about homosexuals." Well now, neither did Jesus say a word about bestiality, child molestation, and dozens of other greater and lesser sins.

Jesus did not have to mention homosexuals, for Israel had laws against that ABOMINATION, punishable by DEATH. Israel was not plagued with homosexuality like America is today. He could have quoted our texts in Lev. 18 and 20—from the example of His Father's Wrath against Sodom and Gomorrah, and also the horrible rape and death of the concubine. Jesus knew every account of homosexuality since He was the Word Himself (Jn. 1:1). Those "clobber Scriptures" that today's homos HATE, found in the New Testament, were not found even written in Jesus' day.

Marc brings up divorce, so let us take off on this one. But, before we do this, allow me to give a quick Bible study, from the Old Testament, about the SIN of same-sex sex. Actually, our buddy Marc guides his readers to the central truth of the whole same-sex marriage lie. Jesus' discourse with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:1-12 points out for us that He, and the Word (God/Holy Spirit too), recognize only One kind of marriage: that between man/male and woman/female. 19:5 tells us, "...and the two (man/woman) shall become one flesh." Not a mention of male and male, OR female and female matching. Jesus could have pointed to other Scriptures that might back up the WISH of the homosexual agenda for S-SS (and/or same-sex marriage), but there were/are NONE. Period!

Human Fact

PROCREATION IS God's way of populating the earth—homosexuals CAN'T DO THIS!! The male penis and female vagina/womb are complementary organs; therefore, homosexuality is a PERVERSION. God's command to the man and woman, after godly pairing/marriage, was to, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Gen. 1:28, KJV). AAT reads: "And God blessed them (man and woman, not male and male, nor female and female), 'Have Children,' God told them, 'and multiply and fill the earth...'" No mention of same-sex sex, or same-sex marriage.

Homosexuality (both male/female) constitutes sexual LUST for its own sake, not God's. Actually, it is, as one Bible scholar says, "little more than unbridled lust, void of societal responsibility." Amen to that!

Instead of populating the earth, homosexuals are depopulating it with AIDS—they are MURDERING their own kind and at an alarming rate. Semen ejaculated without fulfilling God’s intended purpose is not a blessing, but a sin...for it was given for a purpose—for procreation. Moreover, since only the female (fertile) can provide the needed fruitful field capable of sustaining the growth of the seed of man, ALL unions that did not have procreation in view were forbidden—according to Jewish Philo and others. Within the Greek/Roman world, this held true too, but there was widespread homosexuality as well as adultery and other sex-sins.

In Plato's "Laws," statement 636 C went like this: "When male unites with female for procreation, the pleasure experienced is held to be in accordance with nature (kata physin), but [it is] contrary to nature (para physin) when male mates with male, or female with female." Of course, Plato was concerned with national growth and stability, not merely self-indulgent lust. This is exactly what the whole homosexual movement is about—to destabilize the family unit, turning men's godly affections and love away from their wives (or reverse—vice versa) and from child birthing and nurturing of children.

Musonius Rufus

THE FIRST-CENTURY Stoic philosopher penned this: “Men who are not wanton or immoral are bound to consider sexual intercourse justified only when it occurs in marriage and is indulged in for the purpose of begetting children, since that is lawful, but unjust and unlawful when it is mere pleasure-seeking, even in marriage. But of all sexual relations, those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those involving males with males—because the daring and flagrant art is contrary to nature (para physin; XII)” (This is a modified translation of C. Lutz, 1947). One might also want to look up a later work, “The Pseudo-Lucianic Amores” or "Affairs of the Heart" (Ca. 300 C.E.)

Nations Worldwide condemned homosexuality, even though many were plagued with it.

All this homo stuff that is passed off as "love," is UNLAWFUL in God's sight. Sheer WANTONNESS (tryphe; or: softness, daintiness, luxury, and indulgence) transgresses the laws of God and nature, (ten physin auten parenomesen). When ONE nature comes together, it is an ABOMINATION, and a DISGRACE, to the human race.

The homosexual movement/agenda could be classified as sacrilege, the worship/idolatry of unlawful sex, sex against God and nature. One only needs to read Romans chapter one to see the many similarities with Paul's presentation. Vv. 18-32 [presents] sinful passions for the same sex as a devolution from anatomical and procreative fittedness of male and female present in nature ever since creation.

The obscuring of gender differentiation through S-SS is an offence to God and humanity. God created male/female for pairs, not for LUST. And the sin to feminize the passive partner, that is male= "soft one," female="butch" is out of order. And the transgender becomes a deformed person. This was never God's intent, despite what all these perverts tell us. They are really sick indeed!

Pederastic S-SS

PHILO'S COMMENT on Lev. 20:13: "When a man lies with another man as with a woman, both do something abominable and must be KILLED" (AAT). Philo sees the Holiness Code/Law as justified in condemning the active and older lover in pederastic same-sex sex: "He pursues a pleasure that is contrary to nature and does his part to make the cities desolate and empty...by destroying the procreative sperm...and allows the fruitful fields (of women) to lie barren...no growth can be expected..." (Spec. Laws 3.39).

Actually, there are volumes out there that can be quoted from, that refute same-sex sex. Much comes from the non-Christian world, not from the Bible alone. I will challenge any and all to debate this in writing.

You see, Jesus did not need to mention homosexuals or homosexuality; history did it for Him.

All these sex perverts today totally avoid/overlook the anatomical complementarity, or fittedness ,of the male and female sex organs. A man's penis is not to penetrate a man's butt hole—putting it bluntly; the same goes for what women do to themselves.

Witness of Jesus the Christ

It tires me to read such biased and bigoted writing from the Queer Camp. They never put forth an honest exegesis.

These perverts put a positive spin on the silence of Jesus regarding homosexuality—as we're seeing from the letter in question.

It is debated that Mark 9:42, "Causing one of these little ones to sin" originally referred to pederasty, at least it is possible, as Prof. Robert Gagnon footnotes in his book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice." Based on a parallel with a text from the Babylonian Talmud (b. Nid. 13b. cf. Will Deming, (Mark 9:42-10:12; Mt. 5:27-32 "A first-Century Discussion of Male Sexuality," NTS 36 (1990): 130-41). "The offense against the 'little ones'...appears to be either pederasty or some other form of (heterosexual) child molestation, equivalent to the rabbinic 'playing with children'" (ibid., 134).

Thomas E. Schmidt, who wrote "Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate" (1995) appears to accept the connection between Mk. 9:42 and pederasty (pp. 93-94). I personally don't know. Some scholars believe the "little ones" refers to Jesus' disciples, as Will Deming relates in his book listed above (p. 138). He appears to be unsettled on this text. The text found in Zech. 13:7 (part of which is quoted in Mk. 14:27) mentions the "little ones," probably referring in context to the one third of the Israelites who will be severely purified, but not destroyed by God's judgment (see Carol and Eric Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (1993).

Others interpret it to mean "those who play with children" refer to "those who marry young girls who have not yet reached the age of child bearing" (hello Muhammad!). All in all, the suggestion that Mk. 9:42 originally referred to pederasty is possible, but not probable.

I would suggest you purchase any of Prof. Gagnon's books against the revised view (Politically Correct Bull) of "The Bible's position on homosexuality," plus T.E. Schmidt's book already mentioned, Vern L. Bullough's "Homosexuality: A History," Charles W. Keysor's "What You Should Know About Homosexuality," Jeffrey Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," Donald J. Wold's "Out of Order," and James B. Young's "Homosexuality."

I'm sure you'll see right through all the "Revised" authors like Walter Wink, Robin Scroggs, Pim Pronk, Martti Nissinen, David Greenburg, Victor Paul Furnish, George Edwards, William Countryman, John Boswell (whom I critique in several of our Gay Way booklets—he died of AIDS), Sherwin D. Bailey—Boswell's mentor, and Dennis Altman. There are several lesbian authors that hold to the "Revised" view—especially Bernadette Brooten's "Homoeroticism" (1996), who actually defends Paul's condemnation found in Romans one. Although her arguments for homosexuality are flawed; of course, she is a strong advocate for the view that Rom. 1:26-32 "directly recalls" Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (which we've already discussed).

"Brooten believes that Paul's connection to the Holiness Code constitutes a good reason for disregarding Paul's stance on same-sex intercourse. Such connections, she argues, demonstrate that Paul's position was based on antiquated views of impurity, defilement, and shame that cannot be considered normative for our own time. With regard to the forbidden sexual relations in Lev. 20, Brooten contends that neither age nor consent factored into penalties...for Paul, consent and coercion do not play a role in his condemnation of homoeroticism," writes Prof. Gagnon. (See Brooten's "Love Between Women" for more details).

JESUS DID NOT HAVE TO MENTION HOMO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE; HE HAD A GOOD REASON FOR BEING SILENT. THERE WAS, IN HIS DAY, NO SUCH THING—MARRIAGE WAS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. This is why He mentions marriage and divorce between opposite sexes. Our opponents try and make it appear that Jesus wasn't against this gross abomination. HA! His silence does no such thing. The word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Just because Jesus made no direct comment on S-SM (same-sex marriage) does not make Him agreeable with it. He, Himself lived when the Mosaic law/Holiness Code was in effect. His appeal to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 in His divorce discussion (Mk. 10:1-12) CONFIRMS His embrace of an exclusively heterosexual model of monogamy. You perverts who try to insert your sick and disgusting opinions into The Word only makes you look foolish. He very well could have mentioned same-sex marriage right there, if He approved of such a thing. His silence reinforces His approval for male/female marriage. Same-sex marriage never entered His mind.

Frankly...

JESUS WAS never shy about expressing his DISAPPROVAL of the sins of His day, but same-sex marriage was not common; hence, His silence should not seem unusual. The woman caught in adultery—a sex-sin requiring death, is a good case-in-point of Jesus' mercy—although He clearly maintained His opposition to such..."Go and SIN no more!" But at no time did He overturn a specific prohibition of the law against unlawful sex.

Gagnon points out that the "ban on divorce is not an exception here because the Mosaic law neither prohibited permanent marriages nor commanded divorce; it only allowed divorce."

Extant Jesus Tradition

THERE ARE NO explicit references to S-SS in extant Jesus tradition; implicit references do exist. Our opponents ought to study Mark 7:21-23, one of several vice lists found in the New Testament. Here in Mark 7, Jesus points out what DEFILES a person: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

Note the order here: "evil thoughts" (porn/lust?), "adulteries," "fornications"—all sex-sins. Some translations state: “sexual immoralities (porneiai), adulteries, licentiousness”...NO first-century Jew could have spoken of "porneiai" (plural) without having in mind the list of FORBIDDEN sexual offences in Lev. 18 and 20 (e.g., incest, adultery, same-sex sex, bestiality). In this particular saying, the sin of adultery is listed separately, so the plural likely has incest most in view, along with S-SS and bestiality, probably also fornication and prostitution.

So, Jesus' statement underscores that unlawful sexual behavior DOES MATTER. I grant you, JESUS DID HAVE HOMOSEXUALITY IN MIND WHEN HE PUT FORTH THAT VICE LIST.

Our opponents are free to imply (with written texts) whatever they wish, but they forbid us if we imply. Jesus did not have to utter the precise word/words—homosexual/homosexuality—to make His point. But we find NO reference in writing, nor in implication honoring, condoning, or blessing homosexuals/homosexuality. NOWHERE in the entire Bible do we find it, explicit or implicit.

Mark 10

IN MARK 10:19, Jesus speaks of the Decalogue—including the prohibition of adultery. It is, as many Bible scholars believe, probable that implicit in Jesus' embrace of the 7th commandment against adultery, was a rejection of ALL same-sex sex. Vice lists appear in Palestinian Jewish literature besides the Bible. Paul uses several vice lists in which they all start with unlawful sex.

While Jesus does not address same-sex sex/marriage explicitly, His silence can be taken as ACCEPTANCE of the Levitical standards, and what implicit evidence remains builds up this conclusion. Strong implicit evidence is found in the divorce texts in Mark 10:1-12 is settled.

So Far—

JESUS ACCEPTED the model for marriage and sexual union presented in Gen. 1 and 2. He KNEW that God ordained man and woman, not man and man/woman and woman, "from the beginning of creation" (Mk. 10:6). He shows no awareness, let alone acceptance, of any other pairing/union. You perverts that deny this, deny truth. I challenge you to produce just ONE verse, implicit or explicit stating otherwise. I'm yet to get one challenge over the years. Oh, a few use some lame examples, but nothing to prove their point of view.

To undermine the saying in Mk. 10:1-12, pro-homo advocates/homosexuals tell us that Jesus did not utter these Words (like those "Jesus Seminar" perverts). Jesus understood and taught sexual ethics which disallowed same-sex unions/same-sex sex; He stood firmly upon the monogamous marriage between man and woman.

ADAM AND EVE WERE THE ONLY MODEL FOR MARRIAGE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE. Marriage between the opposite sex, two genders, is what God intends. Frankly, I find nowhere in Genesis to accommodate an etiology—a study of causes, for same-sex unions. Jesus held up only ONE, I repeat, ONE model for sexual union.

Sexually Tolerant Jesus?

NOW TO the heart of the whole matter: Was/is Jesus, tolerant of sex-sins? Do we have any proof?

We now have an army of homos and pro-homos who have enlisted in his "Tolerant Army" with Captain ‘Jesus’ in lead. The enlistees are in open celebration of homosexuality (with ‘Jesus'’ counterpart Prez Obama signing new laws—prohibiting Biblical laws). This "Pink jihad" against Christianity and God's created order for man/woman, is turning into a global cultural agenda—all this "pink perversion" is the direct result of "since Jesus never mentions homosexuality, nor does He specifically condemn it, it must be legitimate in His eyes." I ask, just when did Jesus, God, or God's Word, begin to TOLERATE sexual perversions/sins, homo or hetero? If this can't be answered, we conclude, He DOES NOT CONDONE any of it at all. Period!

Because Jesus had mercy on the woman caught in adultery, our opponents believe He, too, condones homosexuality. They are missing a vital point Jesus made, or rather, the statement He made—"Go and SIN NO MORE" (John 8:3-11). I've already written on this account, so I won't go any further here. Our opponents, in quoting this discourse, always leave out (in v. 11), "Go, and sin no more." This destroys their "tolerant Jesus."

Truthfully, Jesus was more strict, not more lenient, on such matters—more so than His Jewish contemporaries. Note how the Jews brought only the guilty woman, not the man. Could one of their Jewish leaders be the partner in adultery?

Concerning the divorce issue, this is a long drawn out study—in which I will not to engage here. But the truth is, His discussion reinforces man and woman relations, not man and man. One thing He does mention—adultery is sin. He was not tolerant on this issue, so why should He be on same-sex sex/marriage?

Jesus did not condone adultery, but He did uphold the sanctity of the marriage vow. It is really rebellious to question homosexuality as being honorable. It was not, nor will it ever be. America (or any other nation) can pass laws favoring this abomination—THIS IN NO WISE MAKES IT ACCEPTABLE.

Thoughts and Actions

IT IS HONORABLE to confine sexual intercourse to one's wife/husband, and it is also honorable to constrain one's sexual thoughts as well. Jesus, as you know, actually expounded parts of the law—thinking about adultery=doing it.

Today's culture (Church included) has "released the Beast." Those who believe "committing adultery" is greater than doing the same in one's heart, Jesus said they are equal. "Heart adultery" can be done without public manifestation, but "body adultery" can't. Nevertheless, Jesus condemns both (see Mt. 5:27, 28). In versus 5:29-30, could "eye" refer to a lustful glance (today it would be porn viewing, no doubt!), the "hand" to masturbation? Could the "foot" refer to walking/running to do the act?

Out of the Kingdom

MY IMPRESSION of Matt. 5:27-32 is that of a serious warning against sin, sex-sins included. Especially sex-sins, with the same or opposite sex, could, and would jeopardize one's entrance into and being rejected out of the Kingdom of God. For those of you who have a twisted/perverted/skewed view of God's Word, you have already jeopardized yourselves. Jesus was not "tolerant" of sex-sins; He extolled the virtues, and warned against the vices.

One reason Jesus showed mercy (for which He came and died for) was that immediate capital punishment (stoning the adulterous woman) did not provide the offender with a second chance to REPENT. But this in no wise makes Jesus "tolerant" of sin. THE UNREPENTANT SINNER WILL PAY IN THE AFTER LIFE.

Again, Jesus came to redeem the lost sinner, not kill them. But this is no reason to believe that He was "soft" on sin. HE ADVOCATED MERCY, AS WE HERE DO, AS A MEANS OF STIMULATING REPENTANCE, rather than approve the death penalty. Jesus was a preacher of repentance, not of death to the sinner. Yet, He never failed to WARN the sinners of the consequence of failing to repent: HELL!

Pink Gyrations

IT IS UNBELIEVABLE how much gyrating the homo camp goes into to justify their rebellious lifestyle. They even have raised up champions in the Church to PROVE us wrong. They are not proving us wrong; they are fighting God and His Word. There is not a single verse in the whole Bible that condones homosexuality; no model for a "gay" lifestyle, no example of virtue, nothing, only a blanket condemnation.

Sure, their Bible champions read into Scriptures what THEY want them to say (eisegesis), but this only proves them to be misotheists—haters of God!

Jesus spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:28-32; Matt. 10:15; 11:24; Mk. 6:11), presenting the SIN that brought about the total destruction because of their homosexuality. And don't even attempt to tell us that Sodom and Gomorrah's SIN wasn't homosexuality, only a lack of hospitality. How absurd!

Sodom and Gomorrah were known for their extreme evil. There are numerous verses that prove this out. Their abominations were all forms of sexual immorality. The Bible tells us that "the men of Sodom were great sinners," and in their wickedness, "they passed wisdom by," and they "acted arrogantly...notorious for their vices" (see Gen. 19:4-11). Of course, there were other sins, but sexual immorality was THE SIN that brought destruction. So much for God accepting this ABOMINATION. Why didn't Jesus lift up Sodom and Gomorrah as models for morality?

If one cares to check out the list for forbidden sexual relations in Lev. 18:6-23, which characterizes all of the preceding acts as "abominations" (to ‘ebot, 18:24-30, with the plural appearing in 18:26, 27, 29, 30), one will see that only homosexuality is singled out for special mention within the list as "AN ABOMINATION" (18:22 and 20:13). The point is probably the same for Ezek. 18:10-13; all of the preceding acts are "abominations," but there is ONE specific act that deserves the label above all others: homosexuality. The phrase in Lev. 20:13 and Ezek. 18:12 are almost exact.

Jude also (7, 8) characterizes Sodom and Gomorrah as cities "that committed sexual immorality [Gk. ekporneusasai] and went after other flesh." This does not sound like a lack of hospitality to me. Jude no doubt refers to the homos in Sodom and Gomorrah going after Lot's angelic visitors. (I've already written on this in our Gay Way series.)

Fin

FROM GENESIS to Revelation homosexuality is condemned. Lifting up this sick sin, as America is currently doing, will not make God (nor us here) change His mind. All this ridiculous "celebrating" will only incur more judgments upon this backslidden nation.

With all this said and done, I want to tell those that are "caught up" into the sex-trap that there is a WAY OUT! All sex-sins are forgivable. There is salvation and healing in Jesus Christ the Lord. But, I also must warn you that He will not forgive you unless you renounce your sins, REPENT OF YOUR SINS, and ask forgiveness.

Jesus died for sinners. The WAY is open to ALL, but we must personally apply it to our lives.

If I am to love my neighbor as myself, then I must present the Gospel to my neighbor, not covering his or her sin(s).

Someone did this for me over 41 years ago. I took the challenge and changed.

If you've been lied to about how God "created you that way," or that you were "born that way," YOU CAN BE BORN AGAIN (see John Cpt. 3 for instructions). AMEN.