In a way, I wish I were more as a reporter. I guess that if I had taken the right classes in college, I might have learned how to do research better. Mostly, if I can’t find it on the internet, I’m sunk. Moreover, what they put on the internet isn’t always true. Like the fella said, you can’t believe half of what you read or anything you hear. So it is that in order to write something and be believable, I have to find it in at least three places, better if it’s five.

Well, there is one thing I can write about… that which I have seen or experienced. For instance, I do have considerable knowledge on the gas shortages of the seventies. I was there. I saw it and I experienced it. If someone tried to tell me it didn’t happen, I would know the person either lacked the knowledge or was lying. Oddly, there are people who do that sort of thing. Perhaps I might one day write a book on such things. There would be but two problems. The book would be very thick and I’d never finish it. As soon as I thought I was done, I’d have ten more things to add to it.

You see, I don’t write so fast. Moreover, before I could release it, I would have to proof read it three times to make sure I didn’t have a bunch of stupid grammar mistakes. There are people in this world that could likely write something like that but I’m afraid no one would read it. One dem intentionally tells something I know is false. Before I can get my computer turned on, ten more repeat the lie, which, of course makes it true, even though it’s not.

Moreover, people do like to believe the lie. In some regards, it is called gossip and the only place you would see something like it printed were in the tabloids like The National Inquirer. Nowadays, I am more prone to believe The National Inquirer than something like the New York Times.

So, let me explain something I saw on TV. Some of it I suppose you can take with a grain of salt. However, it is what I saw and it is what I heard, maybe 15 or 20 years ago. My memory is not so good, but I do remember enough to make it an effective true story.

Sorry, can’t remember, but I think it was on Sixty Minutes. To be sure it was one of those TV magazines and it includes my thoughts and emotions as I heard it.

At any rate, they were interviewing a chaplain of either Yale or Harvard. They said which one, I forgot, sorry. The point is, it caught my attention. Why…why, would they be interviewing a chaplain. I figured they would never interview any kind of a preacher on any major network TV, let alone on prime time. I had to stop and see what my ears would not believe.

Actually, something else surprised me. I didn’t know they had chaplains at those colleges. I sort of wanted to find out about that too.

So the interview began. They introduced the man and immediately got down to the reason they decided to interview him. He was homosexual. I guess it is one of those man bites dog stories. I mean, if the man taught against homosexuality, no one would want to give him a second on TV let alone one of the expensive minutes.

So now I’m thinking the commentator will never bring up the point that the Bible does speak against homosexuality. I mean, 15 years earlier, they would have. Certainly not in the here and now. Surprised me! He did. He had the nerve to ask about it.

Here’s the thing. It was arranged. Now the so called chaplain was given a soapbox and he was not going to pass up the chance to use it for spreading his guile and deceit. You see, he explained that God meant it only for the Jews. You see, he wanted the Jews to become a large nation. If they were a bunch of homosexuals, they would not increase in population.

Okay. After I reached up and put my jaw back in place and I listened to his logic, weak as it was. Still, I had to admit that I could not sit down with anyone and explain his error. Nonetheless, I knew the reason for the logic. He wanted to believe the lie, possibly suggested to him by someone else, so he did.

Afterword, I went to my Bible and read the passage he quoted, Leviticus 18:22-23 and quite frankly, as far as it went, I had to agree with the man. But then I read on. Verses 24 & 25 makes it obvious that the man was in error. Perhaps he stopped reading before he got there.

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

It is plain that the reason God has given the Hebrews the land is that God is also punishing those who were in the land. They had there chance to repent and didn’t. If you look at the larger picture, you will see they were given 440 years. And, because they were defiling the land, God has given the Hebrews instructions to utterly kill everyone there. It was Gods way of pronouncing judgement on those who lived in the land, same as He can pronounce judgement on the US if we don’t repent. If the US continues to defile this land with, among other things, homosexuality, He would be completely righteous to destroy us and remove us from this rich and bountiful land just as he did those in the land given to the Hebrews.

This tells me that God simply does not like homosexuality, regardless of who is doing it. Moreover, it speaks of them defiling themselves, which tells me that it is not only wrong but deviant. You see, of all the sins, homosexuality is the only one that is not natural. I guess you could say, it was man made. In Romans, Paul calls it unnatural.

How-some-ever the man did have something of a point. When God gave the law to the Israel, He gave it to Israel as a gift. If they obeyed the law, God promised to bless them and keep them in the land. If they disobeyed the law, God told them that he would punish them and drive them out of the land, which He eventually did.

Nonetheless, I do not see that it would cause any harm to any nation to collectively follow God’s law to the best of our ability, or at least the 10 Commandments. Murder, stealing, lying and even jealousy can spell doom for any country. Certainly, idolatry will do it no good.

There are two more things I need to say about homosexuality specifically. Regardless of the law, disease has a habit of following the practice. It may be why God wanted both man and animals killed. It was an effort to control the disease that had become common in the area. Can’t say for sure but I have heard the theory from those that know more than me, a lot more.

Besides, it is logical. It’s not just the disease that destroys the cities it abounds in but the immorality as well.

Secondly, what ever it is called, it is outside of marriage as God defines marriage. That, in itself makes it wrong, even if there were no passages at all directly concerning the practice.

Now, going back to that TV magazine, I wonder just what the motive was for them to conduct the interview. I wonder just how the interviewer is explaining it to God. For that matter, I wonder how that So-called chaplain is explaining his actions to God. As a leader, he will have far more to answer for.

However, I’m sure it was what the guy wanted. Otherwise, how in the world would he have talked himself into it, and then try to justify it with God’s word. Some folks want what they want, even when they know it’s wrong. Even when they know it leads to destruction.

Incidentally, what God put in his word is true and you can believe 100% of it.

Now I wonder. Do they even still have chaplains at colleges these days. We might be better off if we don’t, considering what this guy called truth.