Topical Studies
What the Bible says about
HIV Virus
(From Forerunner Commentary)
|
Exodus 20:14
As far as we know, the crisis of AIDS has been with us since 1981, although blood samples from as early as 1959 show evidence of the HIV virus. Already, tens of thousands have died from it in the United States alone. Although the disease can be spread by other means, the primary vehicle for the contagion is sexual contact. Before AIDS, sexually transmissible diseases (STDs) like gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, and chlamydia—politely called "social" or venereal diseases—raged around the world for centuries. Like AIDS, these are primarily spread by sexual contact, usually of an illicit nature. Today, the Centers for Disease Control reports, 87 percent of all reportable disease is sexually transmitted! This means, of course, that 87 percent of all disease is preventable—by keeping the seventh commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), which includes all forms of sexual immorality. Mankind could eliminate nearly nine-tenths of all disease by changing sexual behavior to conform to the standard of God's law! Imagine the health, joy, and peace this would cause! What a breakthrough, right? Wrong! The medical establishment worldwide—except for a few "radical" countries, most of which are Muslim—utterly rejects behavioral changes in favor of the politically correct "safe sex" procedures. Dr. Ed Payne, a faculty member at the Medical College of Georgia, calls the medical community's attitude of rejection of moral values "deliberate naiveté" (World, November 1, 1997, p. 5). Like children, they believe that if they just shut their eyes to the underlying cause of the problem, it really does not exist. Dr. Payne writes: The crisis of American medicine is not tobacco, AIDS, silicone, the Gulf War Syndrome, breast or any other form of cancer. . . . The crisis of American medicine is far greater than any one of these problems; indeed, it is far greater than all of them combined, because the answers to these problems do not come from within them, but from medical ethics. It is the same crisis that faces our culture in every other area: How do we decide ethics? That is, how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? (ibid.) What is the result? In the case of STDs, the medical establishment actually promotes promiscuity and immorality. Rather than "weigh in" on pre-marital sex, it provides sex education, condoms, and birth-control pills to adolescents. To the majority of "health professionals," homosexuality is not wrong, but unsafe homosexual sex is "at-risk behavior." They do not see the risk that God will punish for this sin (see I Corinthians 6:9-11; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-32; I Timothy 1:8-10; Deuteronomy 23:17; Revelation 21:8), but that a person might get a fatal disease. Wrong becomes right, and if it is so right, their actions say, we should do more of it!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Right? Wrong?
|
|
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
What an individual does—good or evil—affects the lives of others as well. Whether committed by man, woman, boy, or girl, there is no such thing as a victimless crime or a private sin. Sins of commission and omission affect the doer, his family, friends, and society. Robert Bork ("The Necessary Amendment," First Things, August/September 2004, p. 16) drives this point home in his comments about the effort to legalize homosexual marriage. Bork cites three reasons why "the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live." First, sanctioning gay marriage will endorse heterosexual promiscuity. By its very nature, legitimatizing homosexual marriage demeans "traditional marriage, [which] comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others." Studies of the consequences of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands hint that nontraditional marriage arrangements break "the symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family." When that happens, there follows a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community. Second, sanctioning gay marriage will result in an increase in the number of practicing homosexuals. To legitimize homosexual marriage goes a long way to equating heterosexuality with homosexuality. What were once elemental differences become blurred in peoples' minds. "By removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals." Bork continues by pointing out that young people, "as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality" may find it easier to develop a homosexual orientation. This in turn will lead to an increase in the "homosexual syndrome," a collection of physical and psychological symptoms homosexuals are far more prone to display than heterosexuals. HIV/AIDS is just one set of these symptoms. Attempted suicide rates, commonly 300% higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, manifest another symptom (see "How Normal is Deviance?" CGG Weekly, October 22, 2004). The word gay, attached to homosexuals, is a real misnomer, for homosexuals' lives are not at all gay. The homosexual syndrome manifests itself even in the most "gay-friendly" cultures. This fact exposes how absurd is the argument that psychological disorders in gays are the result of "social disapproval." Bork points out that no research exists to corroborate the notion that society's disapproval of homosexuals' lifestyles results in their increased incidence of psychological disorders. The homosexual syndrome, then, is directly related to sexual perversion itself and is not the product of a guilt-trip forced on sodomites by a supposedly intolerant culture. Third, sanctioning same-sex marriage opens the floodgate to even more outlandish behavior. Bork quotes William Bennett, who points out that homosexual rights activists, having won the battle for same-sex unions, will have no reasons to criticize the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they . . . explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter. In arguing this way, Bork is saying that legitimizing same-sex marriages crosses a line. Once crossed, no other moral barrier will hold against the onslaught of even the most bizarre proposals. How bizarre can bizarre become? Well, how bizarre is the proposal to legitimize pedophilia? After all, if a teenage girl no longer needs to receive parental permission to obtain an abortion, how far are we from legally approving intercourse between an adult and a consenting teenage boy? This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the floodgate principle. Mary Eberstadt shows that "the taboo against pedophilia is weakening." Are those enough consequences of legitimizing same-sex marriages? Just three, but each one is horrid beyond words. In the name of "choice," America is destroying her young people. It is only a matter of time before even the most unspeakable deviant practices become legal, rampant, public, and "acceptable" in America. And, all that to the hurt of sinner and society alike.
Charles Whitaker (1944-2021)
Sodom, Here We Come
|
|
 |
The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment
Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 155,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.
Email Address:
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
|
|
