A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST DEFENDS BUGGERY

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 plexus…There 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