Thursday, July 7, 2016

Evils of religion: Catholic Church changing its stance on homosexuality

I have one more segment on the history of the Mormons, but the news is forcing me to interrupt myself. As I write this, the Synod of Bishops is holding a historic meeting in Italy that will decide the future direction of The Catholic Church. Right now, they are leaning toward doing away with most of their former sanctions on various sexual behaviors, including homosexual activity.
One statement that came out of that meeting shows clearly where their thinking went dangerously wrong:
“Gay unions often constitute valuable support in the life of these persons.”
“There's the problem, right there: Gay unions” and “these persons.”
They have bought into the theory that “Some people are just born that way, they can’t help it.”

That is a lie. There is not, nor has there ever been, any scientific evidence for homosexual tendencies. The mapping of the human genome was completed ten years ago; there is no “gay gene.”

One of the arguments of those who engage in homosexual activity goes like this: They point to the persecution many of them have suffered for their behavior and they say, ‘Do you think we’d put ourselves through this if we could change?’ Well, you might, if you felt the reward was greater than the risk. Plenty of people smoke knowing full well that cigarettes are bad for them.

In the TV show“Nashville,” one character, Will, is a rising country singer who is being tortured by the conflict between his attraction to men versus his need to preserve his hunky, chick magnet image. I’m sure there are many true stories of individuals who have been torn by such dichotomies.

However, on that same show, another character, Deacon, is an alcoholic. He too is tortured at times by the temptation to take a drink. Yet the story line – and presumably the viewers – applaud Deacon’s efforts to resist alcohol, while at the same time suggesting that Will should just come out of the closet and ‘accept who he is.

Why the double standard? There is absolutely no logic to the idea that homosexual behavior is ‘just who you are’ and that resisting such an urge is somehow ‘denying who you are.’
  • The activist ‘gay community’ will point to a man with effeminate mannerisms, one who is meticulous or fussy about details or appearances, or enthusiastic about artistic expression, and proclaim: “You must be one of us.”
  • They’ll prey on a woman who is a tomboy, careless about or even averse to fashion and makeup, or distrusting or fearful of men, and claim her as their own: “You must be one of us.”
THERE IS NO “US”!

There is no segment of the human population whose common physical trait is being gay.
There are black people and brown people and white people, to varying degrees, just as there are tall people and short people. There are dairy-loving people and lactose intolerant people. There are NOT ‘gay’ people and ‘straight’ people. There is less scientific proof for innate homosexual attraction than there is for lactose intolerance.

Christendom got sucked into this debate by a very simple error. They rarely read the Bible, and when they do they misread it.

Their logic went like this:
  1. Some people are born or made homosexuals, and they can’t help it.
  2. The Bible says God loves everyone.
  3. But the Bible condemns homosexuals.
  4. Therefore the Bible contradicts itself.
So, they reasoned, either the Bible is wrong about God loving everyone, or it is wrong about condemning homosexuals. ‘We choose to believe God loves everyone,’ they say, ‘So we’re just going to throw out the part that condemns homosexuals.’

Sorry, thank you for playing, but you’ve overlooked a vital point:
  1. Your church only exists because of the Bible.
  2. The entire Bible claims to be inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)
  3. If the Bible is wrong in one place, the whole book is useless.
  4. If the Bible is useless then your church is not a church, it’s a social business, no different from a VFW hall or a Bridge Club.
You can’t have it both ways.

The Bible is not wrong. Do you know how many times the Bible refers to individuals as “homosexuals”?

NONE.

Here is what it actually says:
  • Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV) 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (a detestable act, NASV, a repulsive act, ISV). They shall surely be put to death.”
  • Romans 1:27 (WEB) “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate (practicing shameless acts, MNT, committing indecent acts, NASB) with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.”
  • 1 Timothy 1:10 (ASV) "The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality ("males who lie down with males", ABPE, "abusers of themselves with men", ASV) or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching.”
True, you can find versions that refer to such ones as “Sodomites” or “homosexuals,” but those are errors based on the bias of the translators. When you look at the original language, in every single verse, you find the correct reading: The Bible detests the ACT, not the INDIVIDUAL.

Even in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, the original activist ‘gay community,’ Lot condemns their acts, while calling them brothers. "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.” (Genesis 19:7 (RSV) And the book of Jude, explaining the condemnation of Sodom, rather than sticking a title on those men like perverts, sodomites, or even homosexuals, as if they were members of a group with an unchangeable trait, says instead (verse 7) that they died because they “pursued unnatural desires…” (ESV)

In this imperfect world of which Satan is ruler (1 John 5:19) are there genetic imperfections and environmental influences that may induce a person to behave in a manner not usual for their gender, or feel an attraction for a person of the same sex? Yes. But that does NOT mean that they are just “that way,” and they should go with it. Would you tell a person with a weakness for alcohol or a hot temper that ‘That’s just the way you are, you should stop fighting it’? If a person overcame a smoking addiction but felt an occasional longing for a cigarette, would you tell them, 'Don't fight it, it's just who you are'? Of course not.
Instead, we would praise such a person for their continued struggle against their weakness.

Please feel free to leave a comment. You can contact me via Facebook, Twitter, or email bill.underwood@mail.com
My Bible-based novel, The Minotaur Medallion, is available at most online ebook stores. To read a free sample, in any electronic format, go to Smashwords.com.
To order it in paperback, go to thebookpatch.com

No comments:

Post a Comment