A Seventh Day Adventist Defends Buggery By Anesia Baptiste

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of News784. Send all articles to [email protected] 

 

In an effort to defend the indefensible move to decriminalize buggery A seventh day Adventist with destroyed logic ends up defending the unnatural, moral health and physical health destroying act of buggery.

What a shame! LGBT activists have made it clear what the scope of their intentions for the OECS nations is, as may be seen in their recommendations to our governments, in a recent Human Rights Watch report of March 2018.

They do not hide to indicate their wish for not only buggery but, by implication, incest and prostitution laws to be removed and all laws which in any way criminalizes consensual sex among same sex persons.

The logic used extends eventually to marriage laws as well. Furthermore, they are demanding legal opportunity to change their gender on official documents and re-education in schools to facilitate acceptance of these ‘new norms’ they hope to achieve by law, to name just a few of their demands.

 Experience of societies outside the Caribbean has shown us the results of such moves: Gay marriage, hate speech laws censoring free speech of critics of lgbt behavior, anti-conscience legislation against Christians and other conscientious persons in the name of protection from discrimination and offense of lgbt folks, persecution of private businesses by law treating them hostile because of their religious persuasions, reprimanding of students at school who merely disagree with lgbt colleagues, censoring of the bible preaching of conversion by criminalizing it as unlawful  “sexual orientation change efforts”, arrest of religious preachers who preach “thus sayeth the Lord” about Sodomy, bathroom laws which result in exploitation of girls and women by so called transwomen, the plethora of gender identities demanding and gaining legal recognition and with it, fear of and penalty on persons for ‘mis-pronouning’ so called transgender folks, gay pride parades with all manner of naked displays and public sexually related acts between same sex (kissing, gyrating etc. on each other), not to mention their open insult of God, Christ and holy things, etc. etc. etc. Yet in the face of all these realities, a Seventh day Adventist who is supposed to defend God and His righteous laws influencing society for the good of humanity, misrepresents the Holy Bible and misuses the writings of Ellen G. White (known inspired writer and prophet to the SDA Church) to defend the indefensible act of buggery!

The SDA claims we must not use religious arguments to frame the discussion on buggery. It is the last thing one expects to hear from a professed Seventh day Adventist Christian. The doctrine of true Seventh Day Adventism upholds Jesus Christ’s commission in Matthew 28:18-20.

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Nowhere does Jesus articulate that a Christian should refrain from preaching what Jesus commands if his or her audience is not Christian and certainly the Christ knew when He sent His disciples into all the world that they would meet a mixture of persons who believe and do not believe in Christianity.

This authority from God in the flesh, to His servants, to preach His commands, is for all time, place and season and no man can improve on it as if He is wiser than God. It does not deny anyone’s freedom to believe differently, to reject what is taught or to practice against it and it is therefore dishonest to present a Christian as anti-choice, when he/she is merely carrying out God’s commission.

 So in carrying out this commission, we must also advise and warn governments, like prophets of old, not to go against God by removing good laws we already have for the preservation of humanity. Jesus, by sending us to the world to teach what he commands, sends us to lawyers, judges and governments too and it is clear Christ supported any good law.

 When they tried to trick him on the question of paying taxes to Caesar, did he not tell the people to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s? Or did he tell them to break Caesar’s law? Or that Caesar’s law should be removed? Seriously, is this SDA really suggesting, by all this talk, that if Jesus were here he would tell the state to remove the buggery law?

A law that is mirrored after His own Buggery law laid down in Leviticus? Not even the thief on the cross, penitent, right next to Jesus, was spared from the penalty for his crime, even though he was penitent. The thief was found guilty and by the law in Rome he should die for his wrong. Christ did nothing to advocate against good laws that mirrored His own laws.

As for free moral agents, when God created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, as free moral agents, the test was not about buggery at all. After all, He didn’t make the option of buggering a man (since He didn’t make Steve, but Eve) and He didn’t make Adam to somehow bugger himself. In short God didn’t make Adam with freedom to bugger himself.

This is why he laid down His law against buggery with the penalty of death for the heinous act. To suggest that because God made mankind free moral agents means he meant for them to commit sin, attacks God’s righteousness. It’s the same foolish logic to suggest that because genuine Christians call on mankind to repent of and cease from the sin of sodomy, they are somehow attacking their freedoms.

 If this were true, it would suggest we should do away with all criminal and civil wrongs, since the very laws somehow hinder the freedoms of people to choose to do the wrongs, according to this SDA’s logic. Such destroyed logic over trying to defend the indefensible, nasty act of buggery?

Furthermore, this SDA misrepresents Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego by claiming they did not protest against unjust laws where they lived in Babylon and Medo Persia, that they did not say what the law should be.

Yet it is clear from chapters 3 and 6 of the book of Daniel that these men blatantly refused to obey the law of the land, publicly defying the Kings of their day, insisting they will not serve their gods nor bow to their idols, nor would they obey the King’s decree. What is that, if not a bold statement about what the law should not be?

 That the law should not infringe upon their religious liberty? In fact, in both cases the laws no longer applied after God miraculously showed the Kings were wrong, and henceforth, these uncompromising Christian soldiers who, by the way, were also high ranking public servants in the governments of these Kings, were able to enjoy their religious liberty and even received promotions after their stance. Why lie on Holy Writ to defend the indefensible, abominable act of sodomy? Doesn’t this SDA know that God still has His buggery law?

Besides, where did society get the belief from, that buggery is wrong? It was obviously from God. He first judged it a crime, an abominable, unnatural act which He said is worthy of death (Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:24–32), and in keeping with His judgment, He destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Bela with the vengeance of eternal fire, making them an example to those who should afterward live such ungodly behavior.

Jude 7 says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication (Greek-porneos-all sexual sins), and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” 2 Peter 2:6 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;” Early in civilization after the flood of Genesis chapter 7, God said this about the cities of Sodom in Genesis 13:12–13, “Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.”

It’s no wonder He made an example of them using fires that He promises to use to destroy all the wicked in the Lake of fire and brimstone to come, in the final destruction of the world, which will be worse than any deluge has ever been. When western society takes its cue from God and criminalizes sexual acts such as buggery (incest and prostitution too), it is because we understand from our CREATOR the evils of these acts in society. What? Is this SDA professor attacking God’s integrity, claiming to be more just than Him, that a good, God-influenced law such as the buggery offence should be removed?  As Job 4:17 says, “Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?”. Regardless, God has not changed on this subject, God still has His buggery Law!

Does God have any right to expect secular law to be influenced by His law? Of course! Apart from the fact that He created humanity and knows best what is good for us and what is not, it was God Himself who set up governments and gave secular and civil law. Just after the flood God Himself ruled that the death penalty should be carried out by man upon the murderer, for example, hence the death penalty law by governments.

 In Genesis 9:6 He said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Additionally, the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 13 explains that governments are “ordained of God” and “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4).

God says they bear not the sword (not the Bible) in vain. Thus, it was God who gave governments authority secularly to punish for evil and what in God’s eyes is immoral is also illegal/criminal. Who dares challenge God’s authority and right to have influence in secular law? Without Him, which man, government, government leader or society would even exist? Thus, where society chooses to maintain God’s influence in law how dare you deem it oppressive? Are you more just than God? God still has His buggery Law!

Then we read of talk about how all sin is sin and none is greater than the other. This was never an argument in this sense-we know that ultimately for any who refuses to repent of any sin, they will meet destruction in the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8; Revelation 20:15). However, despite this, God chose to express His mode of wrath for sodomy, when after men of all quarters of Sodom tried to sodomize two Angels (in the form of men) and threatened to do similarly (worse, they said) with Lot, He rained fire and brimstone on that place and the other cities of the plain about it.

 Ellen White said in the same Patriarchs and Prophets which the SDA cited, “None could discern in those humble wayfarers the mighty heralds of divine judgment, and little dreamed the gay, careless multitude that in their treatment of these heavenly messengers that very night they would reach the climax of the guilt which doomed their proud city.” p. 150. Oh but what was the treatment of the multitude in Sodom that night which would determine their doom? Genesis 19 is clear, they wanted to sodomize the angels, refusing even the virgin daughters of Lot, for preference of unnatural sex with whom they thought were men. Genesis 19:4,5 records the men’s own confession of what they wanted to do with the angels that night, “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” Yada is the Hebrew word for “know” here and it means carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. They wanted to have male on male sex. They said so, God’s word reports so and Mrs. White plainly states it was this treatment of God’s messengers that brought their doom.

 Mrs. White states further, in describing the dooming events of that night, “It was an immense company, youth and aged men alike inflamed by the vilest passions. The strangers had been making inquiry in regard to the character of the city, and Lot had warned them not to venture out of his door that night, when the hooting and jeers of the mob were heard, demanding that the men be brought out to them.” P. 151. Lot knew the habitual sin/iniquity which characterized the men of Sodom—buggery/sodomy—and he pleaded with the Angels not to go outside that night, that very night in which Mrs. White said their treatment of the strangers filled up their guilt and caused their doom. On page 156 she said that night they “…had insulted the messengers of heaven…” and “all were consumed”, together with the buildings and vegetation of the area. Indeed, what an insult to heaven to want to sodomize Holy Angels. It is the same sick behavior we see in Gay pride parades in Canada where men sporting just underpants display images of Jesus on the cross on their crotches. And in Brazil we have Gay Pride Parades displaying the “Best Jesus contest” and the winner is a sodomite man displaying Jesus buggering someone else. The affront to heaven of this unnatural act was clearly the reason for God’s wrath. It was their habit before that yes, but that night, they filled up their cup. Moreover Ellen White’s description of them as being inflamed with the “vilest passions” mirrors God’s in Romans 1:26, 27 when he inspired Paul to write, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Thus, we know she is clearly speaking of their unnatural act of sodomy when she describes them as being inflamed with the vilest passions that night.

   To try to “normalize” buggery as any other sin, by denying the facts that it was for this evil God destroyed with hell fires these sodomites, is stupid at best because it doesn’t change the facts of the account and what God’s words and acts plainly show about His views on the matter. It is also wicked because it waters down the warning God’s use of eternal fires in Sodom and the cities, is meant to give to the world. Such denial makes people comfortable in their sins, like saying to the sodomite, “peace, peace…” when there is no peace and causing him or her to feel comfortable in their wrongs, rather than fear and repent of it. No wonder sodomites openly share his article on social media as if they “scored” one against Christians, carefully describing it as “written by a Christian”. What a time too, when anti-God communists conveniently find his destroyed logic “grounded” because it supports the lgbt crowd for whom  they are allies, yet just days before the same communists had cited communist Father Karl Marx as damning religion as the opium of the masses. Hmmm…

Apparently this SDA would now like to dictate to God why He did what He did, despite what His word clearly records. The audacity and impudence when human beings think by their destroyed logic and intellect they can instruct God, who still has His buggery law by the way! This SDA claims it was not for sodomy but because of being reprobate, having committed the unpardonable sin, that Sodom was destroyed. While it is true the sodomites did not repent when Lot pleaded with them, the Bible never said they (Sodom and Gomorrah et al) couldn’t repent or had reached reprobacy. This is not what the Bible says happened in Sodom, neither is sodomy presented in scripture as the unpardonable sin. Jesus said in Matthew 11:23 to the city of Capernaum, to whom He had come before whom He done all the miracles and they still were unrepentant, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Paul explains to the church in Corinth how Justification was a washing that had changed some of them from sins, including effeminacy and sodomy (expressed in English by the expression “abusers of themselves with mankind”-whose Greek rendering arsenokoites translates to men laying with men). Clearly Paul preached change to the Corinthians who themselves had problems of sodomy among them but were changed/stopped their sodomy, by the Divine act of Justification. The Fact is Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain were destroyed with the vengeance of eternal fires because God found them guilty of an unnatural act which brought great destruction morally to them and their area, and he chose to make them an example of the kind of final fires of hell that He will use to destroy the impenitent after the close of probation. Now, do you want to argue with the Creator God as to why He chose to do THAT with Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain? Do you dare Mr. SDA, defending buggery? God still has His buggery law!

The foolish effort to deny what God Himself said and did concerning Sodom et al, showing His plain hatred for sodomy, has caused this SDA to say all sin is sin in the sense of all sin being on the same level, in a way that has impractical and evil implications, which make even man appear more just than God. For example, a woman steals a candy from a pack, in a store. A rapist rapes, buggers and kills a girl. Both are offences. What penalty should we give each offender? Should we give the death penalty for the stealing of the candy as we do for the murder, rape and buggery, because all sin is sin? Or should we give the death penalty to a woman for littering the street with paper as we would to the man for beheading a woman in Kingstown? Mankind doesn’t even operate like that in the law courts. You see, defending the indefensible makes you destroy your sense and logic. God destroyed Sodom and those cities with hell fires because of the unnatural kind of act they habitually engaged in, thus showing how He deems that behavior. So much He made an example of them that scripture tells us the area was left barren where nothing grows and this is the case up to the time of the first century when Jewish historian Josephus describes the areas as showing “remainders of that divine fire”. Today, there are tours in Israel of the remains up to this modern time as documentaries have shown. Deuteronomy 29:23 says, “And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:” Meanwhile, the grass grew back after the worldwide flood and civilization continued and continues on many other areas God destroyed in one way or the other, but not Sodom and the cities of the plain. Again, rape is sin and so is theft of chewing gum. Is stealing chewing gum on the same level of rape? If by the “sin is sin” claim God does not judge sins according to their nature etc. then mortal man in courts and legislatures become more just than God, this SDA’s reasoning implies. All this in trying to defend the indefensible. Sigh.

Mrs. White even says there are greater sins yet than what was done in Sodom, for which man is destroyed, like rejecting great light sent to them (as Christ indicated of Capernaum). She said, “The Redeemer of the world declares that there are greater sins than that for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Those who hear the gospel invitation calling sinners to repentance, and heed it not, are more guilty before God than were the dwellers in the vale of Siddim. And still greater sin is theirs who profess to know God and to keep His commandments, yet who deny Christ in their character and their daily life. In the light of the Savior’s warning, the fate of Sodom is a solemn admonition, not merely to those who are guilty of outbreaking sin, but to all who are trifling with Heaven-sent light and privileges.” P. 156–157. Oh ohhh, did Ellen White say “more guilty” and “greater sins” in the same chapter the SDA cites for his defense that all sin is sin? Hmm. Ellen White is right because scripture shows the following when Jesus was brought before Pilate, “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”

 This Jesus said referring to the Jews who had cried “Crucify him, crucify him” even though they could not put him to death literally. He said they had the greater sin because they condemned Him to death knowing full well He was God come in the flesh, the Messiah and having all the evidence of the good works He had done among them. The guilt of the Romans (though guilty) was not seen in the same light as that of the Jews, Jesus explained. Now, I would rather listen to Jesus and Ellen White, properly read, than this buggery defending SDA. Clearly God judges based on the light people have had chance to receive and how they have treated this light and yes, in His eyes He regards their sins according to the weight of their responsibility, based on what level of guilt they have (while all sin is sin.). This is not hard to understand. Even in the world it is said “The upholder is worse than the thief”, for example, just as aiding and abetting is a crime even though you are not the principal offender and depending on the level of the involvement one may be charged with a more grievous offence than the other. So, is Christ putting forward a hierarchy of sins here Mr. SDA? Do you dare accuse Him of such in His judgment on some persons having greater sin than others? This SDA had better be careful because all His words in defense of this sickening act being decriminalized, he supposedly being an SDA standing for God’s law, is an affront to God in His investigative judgment where He judges every man by His law. And we know God’s law and judgement does not just send you to prison for buggery, it condemns you to death. Who is the SDA more interested in pleasing? His liberal, communist colleagues at the bar, influenced by cultural Marxism, behaving anti-God, or the most High God who rules in the affairs of men, setting up and taking down governments as He permits? (See Daniel 4:17; Psalm 75:6,7). Regardless of the useless verbiage to try to defend the indefensible, God still has His buggery law!

Again, in an effort to discard the health reasons given for keeping buggery as a criminal offence, this SDA professor attacks and ignores facts but also contradicts himself in the process. If the problem of higher risk of transmission of STDS, including HIV, among men who have sex with men is one of unprotected sex and promiscuity and not anal sex, as was claimed, and since in societies where buggery laws are no more and there is even legal opportunity to marry as same sex, the statistics show greater increase of spread of these STDs among sodomite men, then it seems the suggestion is that there is greater promiscuity among them. Huh? Would removing the buggery law encourage less or more promiscuity? Similarly, this SDA attacks concerns about procreation by saying that buggery has been around for a long time and the population has not decreased but increased. What is he really saying? That the population increased because buggery has been around for a long time? The population increased because people are having heterosexual sex or sex the proper way, not because of buggery. What are you really saying by arguing for decriminalizing of buggery anyway? That since the population didn’t decrease despite people doing buggery, they should go practice buggery continually because they will still live? If we decriminalize killing, we are not telling people who don’t kill, not to kill, you know. Similarly telling us to remove the buggery law is not telling people who don’t bugger, not to bugger, especially since according to this SDA, it doesn’t harm the population increase anyway. Hmm…And yet, despite all this wicked, bankrupt of logic talk, God still has His buggery law!

Let’s look at facts about buggery or anal sex. Buggery laws are health laws for any society. Doctors and others have affirmed over and over that the act of buggery/anal sex is destructive to the health of the human who engages in it. Not only have they pointed out higher risk of spread of STDS, they have also explained specific diseases associated with the organ of the anus, the stomach and blood poisoning, affecting the general health of the individual who engages in buggery. Author of Gut Sense Konstantin Monastyrysky, in answering a question about constipation and anal sex said, “Anal sex causes constipation for the exact same reasons that large stools cause it — the diameter of even a small erect penis is as large or larger than the maximum aperture of the anal canal. And if the penis is large and long, it also damages the rectum, which is quite small…And lubrication isn’t much of a help, because it isn‘t just the friction that does the carnage, but the pressure inside the anal canal that affects anal sphincters, enlarges internal hemorrhoids, tears apart the delicate lining, and damages or desensitizes the super-sensitive nerve endings of the anal plexusThere is really no good way to address this situation except to abstain from anal sex.” To remedy anorectal damage caused by anal sex he says, “…you can always have plastic surgery done to remove scar tissue and enlarged hemorrhoidal pads. But the surgery isn’t going to solve the problem with constipation, because mending the anus with a lancet usually kills anorectal sensitivity altogether, so you no longer experience the urge to move your bowels naturally. Even worse, you may lose your ability to control your anal sphincters and end up wearing diapers for the rest of your life!” He ended by saying this to men whose ‘partners’ may insist on anal sex despite the danger, “If he still insists on having anal sex, measure up his implement, get a cucumber or carrot of a similar size and shape, put a condom on, and ask him to take it first. Maybe that will reduce his eagerness to cause you similar harm.” These reasons, added to cancer of the anus, blood sepsis from stool entering directly into the blood stream through tears of the lining of the rectum caused by anal sexual activity, and more have been identified as destroying the health of those who engage in sodomy/buggery/anal sex. Yet, this SDA Christian wants our law to legitimize an act (by decriminalizing buggery) which is so obviously destructive to human health, as it is unnatural. He wants us to support men’s health being reduced to the point of them walking around in pampers, walking cesspits with blood filled bacteria from stool. Then we hear about love and compassion lacking in us because we dare to tell these facts against this reprehensible practice. After all the compromising talk, God still has His buggery law!

Our own Caribbean Professional Doctor Professor Brendan Bain gave expert testimony about the damage to health of buggery and other activities involving the anus during ‘homosexual sex’, in a case in Belize few years ago, when a sodomite man challenged their buggery law there. For this, the anti-conscience LGBT lobbyists pressured the UWI and had the man fired. He fought back and won a judgment of 4.2 million Jamaican Dollars in 2017. In court he spoke of his own experience treating gay men. “I am persuaded that as a physician and Public Health practitioner, one of my responsibilities is to assess behaviours for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it…Another of my responsibilities as a Public Health practitioner is to assess the cost of behavior, not just to the individual ‘actor’, but also to the community…there are instances in which private behaviors result in considerable public cost in finances due to illness, with accompanying loss of productivity and social disruption and the prospect of premature death. The public cost of these private behaviours must be acknowledged and actively reckoned with.” Dr. Bain continued:

“The male-male physical sexual repertoire may begin in a similar way to the male-female process and can progress from kissing and fondling to placement of the fingers or hand into the anal passage (fisting), oro-anal contact (called ‘rimming’ or ‘analingus’), and insertion of the penis into the anus. A variety of other actions have been reported in some cases of male-male sexual contact; these include the insertion of foreign objects into the anal passage, mouth-anal contact, and golden showers (urination on another person).  In a small proportion of reported cases, there is scat (defecation on another person) and in a few cases, felching (sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus).

Several of the behaviours described in the preceding paragraphs are unsafe and therefore unhealthy because they create an unacceptable level of risk of acquiring and spreading infectious diseases that compromise the health, and in some instances the life of the infected person and the person’s partners.  As an example, a 1981 paper by R. R. Willcox of St. Mary’s Hospital, London entitled, “Sexual behavior and sexually transmitted disease patterns in male homosexuals” published in the British Journal of Venereology, states in part that:Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma [during penis-anus penetration] may encourage the entry of microorganisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. Similarly, granuloma inguinal, condylomata acuminata, and amoebiasis may be spread from the bowel of the passive homosexual contact. In addition, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.”” (Source: Claim No. 668 of 2010-In the Supreme Court of Belize A.D. 2012).

O geeeeeed! Why this SDA defends this health destroying unnatural act, upon which Divine wrath was poured out as an example of destruction to come, is beyond me! However, since this SDA’s argument is that the problem is promiscuity, despite facts above, it seems he is proposing that it is better not to tell them don’t do it (which is the message of the criminal law).  Do not tell the sodomite not to push his privy in a person’s bottom, tell him just don’t do it with many persons, justdon’t do it a lot, tell him to be a “moderate sodomite”, not a “far left sodomite”. Tell him just ensure he protects his privy from the faeces (by wearing a condom), but he must not protect the receiver’s blood from his (the receiver) own faeces, when the pushing of the penis into the anus causes the lining to tear. Such destroyed and wicked implication advice to this nation, from one who should be upholding the Creator’s design, counsel and law!! So this SDA, shouldn’t try to talk about why we don’t call for the criminalization of things that cause diabetes, cancers etc. the same way we say buggery should remain criminal. Remember, he said all sin is sin and he said buggery shouldn’t be criminal, not us. I add, should we then also decriminalize incest and even prostitution? They’re immoral sexual offences too. Should they, like buggery, not be criminal? Another SDA who defended him, has recently publicly said, yes, incest should be decriminalized too, proving what we are saying of the logic is true. The fact is that the true Christian has no problem at all with the state criminalizing buggery just as we respect God’s right to judge it worthy of death! After all this SDAs defense, God still has His buggery law!

Then the Buggery defending SDA asked, “Based on the foregoing and the fact that homosexuality is always denounced while we have demonstrated our acceptance of and promote fornication and promiscuity, which category of persons do you think is more susceptible to having a reprobate mind?” To this is I say that firstly, true Christians who say let the buggery law remain, do not at all accept and promote fornication and promiscuity, as he claims. However, since his rhetorical question suggests that fornicators and promiscuous persons are more likely to have a reprobate mind because of what he claims to be society’s acceptance and promotion of them, while society always denounces homosexuality, then I have to ask him, is he saying that society should accept and promote homosexuality too (since he is calling for the removal of the buggery law), so that it can add more reprobates among the fornicators and promiscuous, according to his argument??? Then he has the audacity to speak of love and compassion. What would the ceasing of our denunciation of the act of buggery (the law addresses an act that a person may or may not do, not the persons themselves) encourage? Not more buggery? And therefore, more susceptibility to reprobacy, according to this SDA defending buggery? He uses about 218 lines to defend buggery and then a mere 7 lines to make a faint attempt to acknowledge the fact that when buggery laws go, so too does freedom of conscience of Christians and others who disagree with it. Anyhow, this shows that Christianity’s position for the keeping of the buggery law is true and destroys all his previous attempts to defend the indefensible.

In his final defense of buggery, he quotes Mahatma Ghandi against Christians and Christianity, for this is the real effect of this quotation. As one who engages in comparative religious studies, including of Hinduism, to Mahatma Ghandi, I say, “I do not like your Hindu gods, I do not like their promiscuous, adulterous, sodomite, incestuous, bestiality, prostitution and murderous behavior. I do not like their disrespect for women’s purity by sexual abuse among Hindus, as seen and supported in their scriptures, and I do not like their teaching that there is no sin. All this shows me that you have nothing to teach me.”

It is a shame that in the face of the evils that the LGBT has planned for the destruction and confusion of our societies, we find ourselves having to spend time exposing the evil compromise of those who say “lord, lord”, but practically attack God’s integrity on the subject of Sodomy. Yet this reply was necessary. If the state must decriminalize buggery because it is a matter of what two consenting adults do in their privacy, the same logic can be applied to incest, prostitution, bestiality (adults with their own pets), sadomasochistic sex acts even if they result in self-mutilation or death. Since this SDA is saying the state is wrong to criminalize the reprehensible act of buggery, then what is God, who first made it criminal, abhorrent and worthy of death, a penalty far worse than what the state gives (10 years in prison)? This SDA is saying that God is even in worse wrong than the state, by his reasoning. What about God’s buggery law? What about God’s judgment? One expects those who want legitimacy and acceptance of their shameful act of buggery to argue thus, not one who claims to lead young people in the way of Christianity in the Seventh day Adventist Church? So you separate God’s views as being applicable when you are in church, but not when you are at work?

Yet this just goes to show the destruction that is taking place in what was supposed to be God’s holy mountain. They are neither hot nor cold but lukewarm, trying to represent God and yet represent man’s anti-God reasoning at the same time? They are even divided, since well-known SDA Pastor from Trinidad who was just recently in SVG speaking of protection of religious liberty, is on record condemning the recent ruling of Justice Rampersad as against God’s plan and he cites the same floodgates argument in his comments as reason why the buggery law should not be struck down- same floodgates arguments this Youth leader in the SDA church here says he doesn’t accept. http://ftp.guardian.co.tt/news/2018-09-21/ruling-goes-against-god%E2%80%99s-plan%E2%80%94dottin

Sigh, what confusion! This shows destruction within the nominal SDA Church when this reasoning is what passes for Youth leadership in the national church. No serious minded should follow it, lest they sympathize with evil and be lost. God cannot rely on such and this is contrary to the History of true Seventh Day Adventism, when Elder Alonzo T Jones in December 1888 stood before the US Congress and argued strongly against an unjust bill that would hinder religious liberty. Never did he or any other SDA argue for the removal of a good law which opens floodgates against religious liberty, such as sodomy laws, which were alive and well at that time in the USA.

The time draws near when lawyers and judges will face the legal challenge against our buggery law in SVG and the OECS. One wonders where this SDA Youth Leader and Lawyer will stand then? Will it be on the side of the sodomite lawyer, married to a man in a foreign land, who is clear about his advocacy to remove buggery laws in our region, and is probably preparing right now to come challenge our laws? Will it be on the side of the sodomites who have no interest in repentance but in forcing society to accept their abominable behavior as normal, and calling on the state to pass laws against Christians’ preaching, calling our preaching of God’s word intolerance and discrimination against them? Or will he stand with God? His writing leaves much to be desired when it comes to standing with God. Yet we call on Him to be zealous and repent of his nauseating lukewarmness which Jesus said makes Him vomit persons with such a state, out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). Amen.

Anesia O. Baptiste

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*