http://www.bahamasissues.com/images/ads/kingdom_view_small.jpg

The Barn’s on Fire! – Part 1

By Apostle Cedric Moss



Last week I shared my thoughts on the upcoming Rosie O’Donnell homosexual cruise with “family values” that is scheduled to make two port calls in the Bahamas. As previously mentioned, my bottom line view of the matter of homosexual cruises and land groups who come to visit our shores for a few hours or days is this: They are an unimportant battle and fighting them is a waste of bullets…our time, efforts and energies. Today, as promised, I share my views on our real battle and hence where our efforts should be focused.

A Parable: Two Fires
Those who are protesting the Rosie O’Donnell cruise and others like it are like persons at the scene of a fire screaming, “The barn’s on fire”, while they ignore the fire that has now started in the dwelling home on the same property. As the house slowly burns, the barn is engulfed in flames so the well meaning crowd frantically scurry around with water hoses and buckets trying to put out the barn fire.

Soon the fire in the house has spread so much the crowd can no longer ignore it so they leave the barn fire, almost put out, and turn their efforts to the house. But they find it is too late, the heat from the house fire and their exhaustion from the barn fire get the better part of them so they retreat from both and wait for help from the fire brigade. As they watch with bated breath, they now realize that they really don’t care if the barn burns down and but they have a deep concern about the house. Standing there, they just hope and pray the house does not burn down altogether and wonder what would have happened if they ignored the barn initially and focused on protecting the house.

Spelling it out
Some might think this parable is too unrealistic because people are smarter than that…from the outset they will let the barn burn down and try to protect and save the house. I agree and that is exactly my point. If we fight the barn fire of homosexual cruises and land groups while we ignore the fire that threatens the house traditional marriage in our country, we would be less than wise. So I’m saying let the barn burn, but let’s save the house!

A Marriage Fire Hazzard
In her November 26, 2003 speech from the throne, on behalf of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government, the Queen of Great Britain said the following to foreshadow soon to be enacted legislation for same sex unions: “My Government will maintain its commitment to increased equality and social justice by bringing forward legislation on the registration of civil partnerships between same sex couples.” So it’s not a matter of if but when same sex unions will come to Great Britain. Knowing that the British Privy Council is the highest court in our legal system, once Great Britain passes a same sex law, I have no doubt in my mind that those in our nation who desire to see legal accommodation for same sex unions in The Bahamas will test our law. In my view, the passage of a same sex law in Great Britain will be a fire hazzard to the house of traditional marriage in our country.

Lighting the fire
Here is how I think some will attempt to start this fire: A same sex couple will seek and be denied a marriage license from the Registrar General. They will then go to the Supreme Court and lose. They will go to our Court of Appeals and lose. Finally, they will go smiling to the Privy Council in Great Britain and after winning, they will return laughing! Yes, I don’t doubt the Privy Council will rule in such a way as to force our Parliament to pass legislation to accommodate same sex unions. In my view, they will do the same as they did when they in a sense arbitrarily rewrote our capital punishment laws to in essence abolish hanging. I believe the Privy Council will take great delight in helping their “backward” former colonial subjects to become “progressive” by demanding that they allow persons of the same sex to marry under deceptive names like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Preview of Next Week
In light of the impending threat to traditional marriage in our nation, King Solomon gave some excellent advice that we would be wise to heed. He said wise people are able to see danger ahead and prepare for it but fools do not and suffer for their folly and lack of preparation (see Proverbs 27:12). With this in mind, the Lord willing, next week I will share my thoughts on how we as a wise nation can take preventative measures against any the impending fire that now threatens the house of traditional marriage (i.e. between male and female) in The Bahamas.

Apostle Cedric Moss serves as Senior Pastor at Kingdom Life World Outreach Centre. Commentary and feedback may be directed to: apostle@kingdom-life.org.

Be careful how you use the power of fear. When the people start looking for themselves with open minds they will see your propaganda to be the untruth it is.

Cedric you have avoided answering the questions and comments on these facts. Because when you do you know people will look for them selves and see the real truth and not the myth/propaganda you want them to see.

The claim is that the Creator made man and woman. But when you study, its says on the sixth day the Creator made man (as in man kind) the Creator made them in the Creator image male and female. It does not say he made 1 male and 1 female. So after the Creator finished the Creator said it was good.
We are all apart of this creation no matter how different we are. Even if homosexuality and transgender is a choice (which it is not) it is that individual’s choice and not yours.
Oh But Christ makes it clear that not all humans are born male or female some are born eunuch. So will you call Christ a liar when he clearly states that humans are not just born male or just female but sometimes they are born both?

What is the purpose of the Holiness Code the Laws in the Old Testament???

How about the truth of the Sodom story? The translation and the myth/propaganda
Behind it????
The word yadha appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual connotation, to simply mean, "get acquainted with" or "learn of." There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to a homosexual act. With the single exception of this disputed Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the men of Sodom wanted to have homosexual sex with the visitors.
To put it into prospective when a tourist comes to immigration the officer wants to yadha them not shakhabh them.

What did Christ say about Homosexuality??????
Why did Christ heal the Centurion’s (a Roman soldier) beloved servant boy? Do you know the relationship between the centurion and his beloved servant boy? We do know that historically it was that of a mentor and protégé that did have sex, homosexual sex.

How has homosexuality affected humanity in the past? Homosexuality has been apart of humanity since there have been humans. Humans are still here and population growing.
So what effect does it have on you if your neighbor is homosexual or transgender? Does it stop you in believing in your faith??? Dose if stop you from earning a living? What does a homosexual or transgender person do to you that makes you dislike them so much???

Are some humans more equal than others??

There is another question that must be asked. When will the Christians leaders stop attacking all those that don’t fit their view as to what a Bahamian or visitor should be? They have picked on the Rasta the Muslim the Haitian the non-Christian the FNM the PLP.
Where will we be when the Christian leaders say to the government out law Islam, Rasta, Jews, Buddhist or that Bahamians born out of wedlock are less equal than Bahamians that are born in wedlock? Will the Christian leaders tell a singles cruises and land groups not to come to the Bahamas???

When will the Christian leaders take the locks off the doors of their churches and stay in their churches to help those that come for help. No matter how loud they get they can’t force their faith on everybody.

Having the might and or the majority does not make it right it just means you have the power to in force your policies on the minority or the weaker. Making a minority or the weak less equal is wrong.
Was slavery right????

The majority/strong. has an oblagation to look after the minority/weak. Because the majority/strong might have been a minority/week or might become a minority/weak.

Vicky:

Comparing the majority's refusal to grant legal accommodation to legitimize aberrant lifestyles like homosexuality to the enslavement of people is like comparing apples and rocks. They are not even close. The forced enslavement of people for the enrichment of those who enslave them is wrong. However, refusing to legally accommodate aberrant lifestyles is not.

You are right that the majority must protect the minority. That is why I'm a part of the majority who believe that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals. Further, I'm a part of the majority who protect the right of homosexual couples to relate to their partners however they wish. The majority is not hindering their freedom in any way. But what you are advocating is that the majority legitimize homosexual unions which is something totoally different from allowing the freedom they currently enjoy to be homosexual and to be in relationship with other homosexuals.

Those who lobbied for slaves did so to give them their freedom that was taken from them. However, those who lobby for homosexuals to be given legal union status are seeking legitimacy...something that is not theirs...because the lifestyle, though legal, is illegitimate.

So, Vicky, don't compare apples and rocks...they are worlds apart!

Vicky:

Our understanding of the issue at hand is poles a part so I don't think a point for point discussion would be helpful. My overall commentary is that you seem to be treating God's Word (The Bible) like a piece of cloth and you are cutting it to suit your own ideas. That is wrong and does not change God's Word...it is forever settled in heaven.

I will reply to one thing though. You asked about what Christ said about homosexuality. You seem to be implying that because you and others think he said nothing it means that he must not be against it. That is flawed logic because Jesus did not speak specifically on everything. For example he said nothing specifically against bestiality (humans having sexual relations with animals). You and I know that bestiality happens today...check out the Internet. Are you saying that because Jesus did not specifically speak to bestiality then it is not wrong?

Also, help us to see how you look at the broader picture of human sexuality. Please answer these questions from your own vantage point:

1. Is bestiality wrong and why or why not?
2. According to our laws in The Bahamas, homosexual sex between adults who are not family is legal so long as it is in private. On the other hand homosexual sex between two adult brothers or two adult sisters is illegal period. Please tell us: Should two homosexual brothers or two homosexual sisters be allowed to have sex legally just like those who are unrelated? Why or why not? Do they have a right to seek some form of legal union just like non-related homosexual couples? If not, why not?
3. Our laws will not allow 3 or more consenting adults to have a group marriage. Do you believe our laws should allow for group marriages/unions between consenting adults (homogeneous or heterogeneous)? If not why not?

Vicky, please only specifically and pointedly respond to these questions in one reply and then if you wish to practice spiritual customizing of Bible texts based on other things, you can do that in another reply.

I look forward to hearing your answers.

The Christian leaders in the past have been mistaken on their interpretation of the Bible on many occasions. At the time you could not tell them they were wrong or mistaken. Just as we cannot tell you, you are wrong or mistaken. You and I also know that Christian leaders would extend their interpretation of the Bible to suit their needs. Another words they would lie. Because of this lie hundreds of thousands of men women and children were murdered in the name of Christ. This period in Christianity is called the “Burning Times”.
Now if Christian leaders were mistaken then how do you think they (and you) are not mistaken now.

Ok here is 1 for you in the entire Bible how many times is homosexuality listed as a sin???? Please give book and verse.

You said:
“My overall commentary is that you seem to be treating God's Word (The Bible) like a piece of cloth and you are cutting it to suit your own ideas.”

Looks like you and other Christian leaders have done the same. You are quick to point out Leviticus 18-22. But you don’t point out all the rest of the laws being broken in Leviticus. You also don’t mention Leviticus 27-34. It clearly states that the laws in Leviticus are for the Israelites living in Mount Sinai. We are in the Bahamas and we are not Israelites.


You do not want to go point to point with me because you know the truth about the misinterpretation will be out.

What we call the stuff your not supposed to know

You also claim that the Bible you read is the Holy word of the Creator. Since when was Emperor Constantine the Creator? Or will you deny the Nicene council even took place.
The Time Emperor Constantine ordered 50 Canonized Bibles and he was paying for them. That is the New Testament not the Old Testament that is the Torah the Hebrew Bible. How about all the teachings that were not included in this Bible, Men decided this. How many teachings were lost or put aside. If Emperor Constantine could change the Birth and Death dates and places of Christ what else did he change????


http://www.reformation.org/meet_the_first_pope.html (http://)

Vicky:

Our understanding of the issue at hand is poles a part so I don't think a point for point discussion would be helpful. My overall commentary is that you seem to be treating God's Word (The Bible) like a piece of cloth and you are cutting it to suit your own ideas. That is wrong and does not change God's Word...it is forever settled in heaven.

I will reply to one thing though. You asked about what Christ said about homosexuality. You seem to be implying that because you and others think he said nothing it means that he must not be against it. That is flawed logic because Jesus did not speak specifically on everything. For example he said nothing specifically against bestiality (humans having sexual relations with animals). You and I know that bestiality happens today...check out the Internet. Are you saying that because Jesus did not specifically speak to bestiality then it is not wrong?

Also, help us to see how you look at the broader picture of human sexuality. Please answer these questions from your own vantage point:

Hi Cedric unlike you I can and will answer these question

1. Is bestiality wrong and why or why not? It is wrong as the Animal cannot give concent.
2. According to our laws in The Bahamas, homosexual sex between adults who are not family is legal so long as it is in private. On the other hand homosexual sex between two adult brothers or two adult sisters is illegal period. Please tell us: Should two homosexual brothers or two homosexual sisters be allowed to have sex legally just like those who are unrelated? Why or why not? Do they have a right to seek some form of legal union just like non-related homosexual couples? If not, why not? Because they are consenting adults and if they are doing it already a law or paper would have no effect on my life or anyone else’s.
3. Our laws will not allow 3 or more consenting adults to have a group marriage. Do you believe our laws should allow for group marriages/unions between consenting adults (homogeneous or heterogeneous)? If not why not? I have middle eastern blood in me. So yes if it works for the marriage group. Again They are concenting adults. We have something like that now its called sweetharting.

Vicky, please only specifically and pointedly respond to these questions in one reply and then if you wish to practice spiritual customizing of Bible texts based on other things, you can do that in another reply.

Now you answer the questions I posted previously

I look forward to hearing your answers.

Vicky:

While you clearly answered the first question and vaguely answered the third, you did not answer the second.

1. You see bestiality as being wrong. So do I, but my reason is that the same Bible that condemns and prohibits homosexuality also prohibits bestiality, one verse apart from the other. I will accept your answer and reasoning about an animal not being able to give consent as being genuine and authentic if you:

- Do not have pets (holding animals who cannot consent). Do you and if so why?
- Do not eat any kind of animal product from the land or sea (because they can't give consent). Do you and if so why?
- Oppose animals being used in any any way (horses, police and fire and rescue dogs etc.) because they cannot give consent. Do you oppose these? If not, why not?

My question is do you fully support leaving ALL animals alone because they can't give cosent?

If you do anything to animals Vicky, you are inconsistent because they can't consent.

2. You did not give your view, Vicky. So I'm restating the second question in red and please tell us in clear language what your views on this are, not what is happening:

According to our laws in The Bahamas, homosexual sex between adults who are not family is legal so long as it is in private. On the other hand homosexual sex between two adult brothers or two adult sisters is illegal period. Please tell us: Should two homosexual brothers or two homosexual sisters be allowed to have sex legally just like those who are unrelated? Why or why not? Do they have a right to seek some form of legal union just like non-related homosexual couples? If not, why not?

3. You vaguely answered it by talking about your middle eastern blood. Your reference to sweethearting is not the same as group marriage. We all know about sweethearting...people have the freedom to be unfaithful and while it is a sin, I do not support making it a crime. But that's not what we are talking about. So I'm restating my question. Please answer it clearly with your view and position. Tell us yes or no and then why:

Our laws will not allow 3 or more consenting adults to have a group marriage. Do you believe our laws should allow for group marriages/unions between consenting adults (homogeneous or heterogeneous)? If not why not?


I await your reply.

Vicky:

While you clearly answered the first question and vaguely answered the third, you did not answer the second.

1. You see bestiality as being wrong. So do I, but my reason is that the same Bible that condemns and prohibits homosexuality also prohibits bestiality, one verse apart from the other. I will accept your answer and reasoning about an animal not being able to give consent as being genuine and authentic if you:

Hi Cedric I knew you were going to go here but I will answer again.

- Do not have pets (holding animals who cannot consent). Do you and if so why? Yes I have pets and if they want to leave my yard the gate is open offten, but they stay. When I call them they come freely and we play and or I scratch/rub them as a friend. For we are animals to.

Do not eat any kind of animal product from the land or sea (because they can't give consent). Do you and if so why?Yes I eat animal product. I even kill animals to eat. We are animals to. By our design our teeth show we are omnivores (eat meat and plant) But I will not nor will I knowing buy animal product of an abused animal. The Bible even describes how to kill an animal so as not to abuse it. I will kill only to eat or to keep from being eaten and to preserve human life. I will not even kill a wasp that in the house. I will coax it out side with a broom or something. All life is a gift from the Creator and is to be respected.
I would kill my pet to eat if there was nothing else.

- Oppose animals being used in any any way (horses, police and fire and rescue dogs etc.) because they cannot give consent. Do you oppose these? If not, why not? . I will kill only to eat or to keep from being eaten and to preserve human life. Needing animal to do a job is necessity consent is not needed. Sex is not a necessity.
I know your next question if sex is not a necessity then why should there be a law to permit union of same sex couples. The reason is you think same sex union is about sex not love, It is about love. If a man and woman get married and the woman is unable to have sex is the marriage void if there is love??


My question is do you fully support leaving ALL animals alone because they can't give cosent?
See above.
If you do anything to animals Vicky, you are inconsistent because they can't consent.

2. You did not give your view, Vicky. So I'm restating the second question in red and please tell us in clear language what your views on this are, not what is happening:

According to our laws in The Bahamas, homosexual sex between adults who are not family is legal so long as it is in private. On the other hand homosexual sex between two adult brothers or two adult sisters is illegal period. Please tell us: Should two homosexual brothers or two homosexual sisters be allowed to have sex legally just like those who are unrelated? Why or why not? Do they have a right to seek some form of legal union just like non-related homosexual couples? If not, why not?
I was very clear they are consenting adults its not hurting me there for none of my business. A law for a brother and brother to be in a union would have no effect on my life so if it were, so be it. I cannot dictate what consenting adults do as long as they are not hurting any one.

3. You vaguely answered it by talking about your middle eastern blood. Your reference to sweethearting is not the same as group marriage. We all know about sweethearting...people have the freedom to be unfaithful and while it is a sin, I do not support making it a crime. But that's not what we are talking about. So I'm restating my question. Please answer it clearly with your view and position. Tell us yes or no and then why:

Our laws will not allow 3 or more consenting adults to have a group marriage. Do you believe our laws should allow for group marriages/unions between consenting adults (homogeneous or heterogeneous)? If not why not?

Yes.. Again you put sex were love is. But if they have sex together it would have no affect on my life. There are many advantages to this especially when it comes to raising children. Just ask all the over worked moms out there how would they like to have some one look after the children and really care about them. To care about the household as if it were her own and to be a contributing member of the family as well. Also vice versa but the nature of males is owner ship.

The wild animals do it.


I await your reply.

Now you answer my prevous questions????????????

Vicky:

I now have clear answers for number 1 (no to bestiality) and number 3 (yes to any form, number or combination of consenting adults who want to marry and be in civil union).

However, you still have not answered question 2. My question is clear and I've asked it two times. Its a simple yes or no with an explanation. You are hinting at yes but for some reason after two tries have not said so. So here is what I understand you to be saying and please correct me if I'm wrong:

Your views are based on a morality with infinite elasticity so there should be legal accommodation for ANY and ALL unions between consenting adults who are not harming anyone else (like two adult sisters marrying, two adult brothers marrying, a man and his adult daughter, a mother and her adult son, and any combination and amounts of the forgoing and others imaginable...so long as they are all consenting adults and are not harming any one else).

Please confirm that I am correct in my summary of your answer to question 2.

Vicky:

I now have clear answers for number 1 (no to bestiality) and number 3 (yes to any form, number or combination of consenting adults who want to marry and be in civil union).

However, you still have not answered question 2. My question is clear and I've asked it two times. Its a simple yes or no with an explanation. You are hinting at yes but for some reason after two tries have not said so. So here is what I understand you to be saying and please correct me if I'm wrong:

Your views are based on a morality with infinite elasticity so there should be legal accommodation for ANY and ALL unions between consenting adults who are not harming anyone else (like two adult sisters marrying, two adult brothers marrying, a man and his adult daughter, a mother and her adult son, and any combination and amounts of the forgoing and others imaginable...so long as they are all consenting adults and are not harming any one else).

Please confirm that I am correct in my summary of your answer to question 2.Hi Cedric That answer was very clear but you want me to say yes ok YES for the reasion stated above, concenting adults. As an adult you have the right as long as you are not hurting any one. I don't care about their sex lives as I don't care about yours. Now you will aim at afection in public and I will answer that befire you ask it as well. What ever level of affection we hold for 1 kind of couple/group should be for all. Equal rights. If it is wrong for a homosexual couple/group to hold hands in public then it should be so for hetrosexuals. All Bahamians should be equal under the law.

Hi Vicky:

Here is my summary response to our dialogue on the point of granting legal accommodation to homosexual unions. As I said, it is not helpful for us to discuss this from a Biblical perspective because we are poles a part on Biblical understanding and interpretation. On the other hand we can discuss it from a common sense societal view point.

While you continue to talk about equality being denied to homosexual couples what you really mean is legal acceptance/recognition is being denied. One of the necessary realities of democracy is that all views cannot be reflected at the same time, only the view of the majority. What you are proposing is anarchy…anything goes (meaning any combinations of consenting persons who want to form a marriage/civil union should be given legal status by the state). Each society has to determine what is best for it and democracy is better than anarchy…at least this is what they majority of Bahamians obviously think.

The only thing I am proposing that the majority of people in our country do by constitutional amendment is this: deny giving legal accommodation to any other kind of union other than between a man and a woman.

While I believe that all other forms, shades of relational combinations are wrong based on the teaching of Scripture, they are also destructive to society. Therefore, while I do not propose criminalizing them, I also do NOT propose granting them any legitimacy from the state because they are aberrant. Of the list, homosexuality is not only aberrant, it is also unnatural.

Vicky, your infinitely elastic moral view is that people should be free to do as they wish with consenting others so long as they do not harm any one else. Based on that view, you would have to support public nudity, sex in public between two consenting adults (in open spaces like on the park and on the beach where there is room for all to do what they want), prostitution and the commercial sex trade between consenting adults, cocaine and marijuana use for adults, profanity etc.

You have often referred to consenting adults. Who determined what an adult is? What do you say to the 16 year old who says that he/she is being discriminated against because there is really no valid reason for adulthood being set at 18? You see, Vicky, 18 is an arbitrary number….why not 17 or 19 or 21 or 30 or 16? Do you support an age of majority and if so how do you support/propose that it be determined?

Vicky, what you want to get away from is societal norms and boundaries but I really don’t think you would want to live in the society you argue for. Makes a spicy debate, but a poor society!

Rev. Moss you wrote. "The only thing I am proposing that the majority of people in our country do by constitutional amendment is this: deny giving legal accommodation to any other kind of union other than between a man and a woman."

I hate to tell you this but, Biblically speaking, the majority has always been wrong - from "It is never going to rain that much Noah!" to "let us return to Egypt" to "Crucify him, crucify him!" The voice of the people (the majority) is never the voice of God and always wrong, Biblically speaking.

From a secular stand point we can see that the majority of the people in the deep south of the Untied States did not want to give Black people equal rights. Many of them used Biblical principles to prove their point. It was a minority that forced the issue. The majority, in a secular sense, is often wrong to

All I am saying is that maybe the majority is wrong on this issue too.

CG:

I agree with you that the majority have been and will be at times wrong. The same is true with the minority. What do you propose? Anarchy and infinite moral elasticity?

When the majority is truly wrong as in the cases you mentioned it is tragic. However, you cannot compare what I am proposing the majority do by constitutional amendment to the crucifixion of Christ and slavery in the south.

All I am saying is that democracy is still better than anarchy and in democracy, moral boundaries are determined by the majority. If the majority of people in our country decided they wanted to give legal status to unions other than heterosexual adult unions, I would have to live with seeing such unions. From a personal point of view I still would not see them as legitimate.

Obviously, I'm grateful that the majority see this issue as I do on this one. In a democracy, that's not always the case. I have been on the side of the minority and will no doubt be again in the future.

So CG, what do you propose...infinite moral elasticity so long as it does not hurt anyone else?