How to Oppose the Sodomist Agenda

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#1
IMHO:

We are seeing how that sodomists will not stop with their gains. Getting the sodomy laws struck down was only the first step. They are not content with toleration of their abominations. They would force the Boy Scouts & Churches to give them favored treatment. They demand that their abominable practices be dignified by definition of marriage. They will persecute those who merely refuse to cooperate with them, putting businesses out of business, punishing those who don't go along with them. They have little toleration for those who merely would opt out.

And next we shall see a push for pederasty to be legal. If fornication be OK between consenting adults, & if fornication be normal acceptable child play between minors, why is it then a crime between adults & children?

This issue is being fought on the wrong level. Trying to get permission to ignore them won't work. Trying to stop their pseudo-marriages will not work. The states are falling like dominos while the SCOTUS allows it and blesses it.

This issue needs to go back to the sodomy laws. Sodomy should be a crime. And thus big pressure of petition and legal argument needs to be put to the SCOTUS to reverse itself. The SCOTUS is capable of reversing itself. It erred when it struck down the sodomy laws. Sodomy must be a crime again. Once that is done, these other issues will be moot.

As for Christians, we need be busy praying for the government & evangelizing. If the general populace is too great a majority of unsaved persons with reprobate minds, what else can we expect per Romans 1?

At the same time, we need an amendment to the constitution defining how the final interpretation of the Constitution will be made. The Constitution failed to do that.

Suggestions:

1) Determine that if the SCOTUS wants to declare a law unconstitutional, it must get Congress & the President to agree, or run it through the standard Amendment process. If a law is passed by Congress & signed by the president, it should be regarded as prima facia constitutional for that reason. And the law should be deemed constitutional unless the SCOTUS gets Congress & the president to agree it is not, or runs it by the people in a general election -- some system in addition to the SCOTUS must be gone through lest the SCOTUS, an oligarchy have dictatorial powers.

2) No judge/justice should have a lifetime appointment. 10 years is long enough, lest power corrupt them.

3) All judges/justices should be subject to recall elections, if either House by simple majority demands a recall election for any of them.

4) All SCOTUS decisions should be reviewable by Congress for "legislating from the bench."
If both houses by simple majority agree that a judge or justice legislated from the bench, two things should happen
a) The decision should be vacated and
b) The offending justices/judges should have to face an immediate recall election.

Unfortunately, nothing may succeed by merely changing the system if the climate of opinion among the people is so vile as to endorse abominable evil -- that is, if the reprobate mind of Romans 1 is too prevalent in the land.
 

djness

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
502
13
18
#2
If a gay person has not had sex with another person does that still make them a sodomist {not actually a word} in your book or are we just going for the most inflammatory wording possible?
 
May 18, 2010
931
15
18
#3
If a gay person has not had sex with another person does that still make them a sodomist {not actually a word} in your book or are we just going for the most inflammatory wording possible?
If in God's eyes imagining another woman is just as bad, I don't see why not.
 
Sep 29, 2014
347
1
0
#4
If a gay person has not had sex with another person does that still make them a sodomist {not actually a word} in your book or are we just going for the most inflammatory wording possible?
"Sodomist" is fair and accurate. Why do you have a problem with it? What does "gay" have to do with men sodomizing each other? If neo-nazis started calling themselves "nice", do you think I should go along with it?
 

djness

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
502
13
18
#5
If in God's eyes imagining another woman is just as bad, I don't see why not.
Well then if imaging is all it takes I think the straight people are by far a bigger issue when it comes to sin.
 

djness

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
502
13
18
#6
"Sodomist" is fair and accurate. Why do you have a problem with it? What does "gay" have to do with men sodomizing each other? If neo-nazis started calling themselves "nice", do you think I should go along with it?
If there were 2 words available to describe something why not pick the most inflammatory because it is accurate..
Is the point.
 
Feb 8, 2014
325
22
0
#7
If there were 2 words available to describe something why not pick the most inflammatory because it is accurate..
Is the point.
Apparently people aren't being semantic enough for you? Politically correct? Do you have anything of substance to say to the subject matter?
 
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
#8
The Sodomy laws are abominable, and should never be brought back.

If you want to see the extent those types of laws go, watch "Paragraph 175".
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#9
What if a husband and wife were to engage in sodomy? Would that be illegal? Because you cant in this country make laws like 'only men are banned from sodomy'. So you would probably have a lot of married heterosexual couples in trouble to for committing sodomy. So now what? Just ban sex in general to only procreative acts? Im just saying its not really a valid concept.
 
P

pastac

Guest
#10
if you are happy= gay or whatever word that is acceptable to whoever to sodomize so be it, That is for them that ascribe to such practices but why not call sodomy sodomy? so sin is really not sin?
it is not possible for two gay men not to have sex and it be anything else but sodomy if two gay men don't have sex how are they then two gay men? people are so sensitive as Christians my goodness don't want to call sin sin don't want to call sodomy sodomy that is a shame!
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#11
if you are happy= gay or whatever word that is acceptable to whoever to sodomize so be it, That is for them that ascribe to such practices but why not call sodomy sodomy? so sin is really not sin?
it is not possible for two gay men not to have sex and it be anything else but sodomy if two gay men don't have sex how are they then two gay men? people are so sensitive as Christians my goodness don't want to call sin sin don't want to call sodomy sodomy that is a shame!
to be fair, sodomy can include heterosexual acts which isnt what he is discussing here, but would be affected. I mean just be clear and honest and say you want to make laws targeting only a certain portion of the population and clearly discriminate against them by outlawing gay sex. i mean honestly come on. Because heterosexual sodomy? no one complains about.
 
P

pastac

Guest
#12
sin is sin sodomy is sodomy un natural is un natural black is black blue is blue this is true unless you mix any of theses things with something else it is what it is. Come on a liar is a liar till he quits lying a sodomite is a sodomite until he or she for that matter quits practicing sodomy The laws have been made I didn't make them the Bible made them man made them the danger is we keep changing them!
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#13
How are we supposed to bring homosexuals to know Christ if they are being demonised and condemned as putrid and filthy subhuman monsters who should be at least locked up and kept apart from society or even better strung up by thier necks on a tree in a good old lynching. Sad thing is many Christians seem to think this way, which is ridiculous, we are supposed to love them not hate them.

It is a shame how Christians have allowed homosexuality to become a battle ground. Had Christians just said , "Jesus loves you" and gave them a hug then who knows what might have happened, but no, Christians take the bait and we escalate into hatred and fear.

I am not saying homosexuality is right, lets be more clear about what is going on here. This is a new battle ground against Christianity which is being exploited by atheists in attempt to show Christianity is outdated and prejudiced against people who are doing nothing illegal. Comments by likes of Atwood simply gives them more proof and ammunition this is correct.

We do not need to like what people do, we do not have to approve it, but we certainly must not condemn and demonise people for thier sin. IF a homosexual comes to know Christ, then only Holy Spirit and CHrist can transform them, many people struggle with weakness of the flesh and other sin for decades but still remain Christians and faithful to Christ. It can be a slow transformation. Do not alienate the homosexuals, or they will all be lost.
 
P

pastac

Guest
#14
I agree with most of your thoughts and the fact that they feel demonized is just a bit of blowback (Consequences) from that sin like we all that have sin have had. I believe telling them the truth is paramount but make no mistake the choice is all theirs to accept truth or continue in their lifestyle. Homosexuality is sin and to God sin is sin no greater or lesser sin!
 
Sep 29, 2014
347
1
0
#15
The Sodomy laws are abominable, and should never be brought back.

If you want to see the extent those types of laws go, watch "Paragraph 175".
The Nazi party started as a homosexual movement. Hitler's purge of homosexuals was nothing but an attempt to consolidate power for himself, from the rest of the party. E.g. the execution of Ernst Rohm. Homosexuals have psychopathic tendencies.
 
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
#16
The Nazi party started as a homosexual movement. Hitler's purge of homosexuals was nothing but an attempt to consolidate power for himself, from the rest of the party. E.g. the execution of Ernst Rohm. Homosexuals have psychopathic tendencies.
Wow...you are a nutcase. Homosexuals have emotions and feel them and are able to empathize. However, you do not seem to be able to empathize or even sympathize, so who is the psychopath here?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#17
Just give them the word of God. Romans chapter one pretty much covers the matter. Let them argue with God and see how they fare.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Sep 29, 2014
347
1
0
#18
Wow...you are a nutcase. Homosexuals have emotions and feel them and are able to empathize. However, you do not seem to be able to empathize or even sympathize, so who is the psychopath here?
Sorry, I'm only the messenger. If you have a problem with the truth, don't take it out on me.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,243
16,252
113
69
Tennessee
#19
Wow...you are a nutcase. Homosexuals have emotions and feel them and are able to empathize. However, you do not seem to be able to empathize or even sympathize, so who is the psychopath here?
I would like to know also.
 

djness

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
502
13
18
#20
Apparently people aren't being semantic enough for you? Politically correct? Do you have anything of substance to say to the subject matter?
It's really the difference between calling a female dog a ***** which is the common noun name for female dogs or going with the words [female dog]. A female dog is a ***** by definition so why not use that word commonly since it fits?
If the word, despite its negative use towards females in general, has a meaning that fits for female dogs than of course by all means we should use that particular word all the time ... right?

If it really is just a matter of semantics then I am sure using the most inflammatory wording possible at all times in our quest for righteousness will be appropriate.

Edit: CC edits the word I used automatically so I guess the proper use of dictionary approved words has been usurped by inflammatory people...which really proves my point.