Monthly Archives: January 2013

by

And the Winner Is…

Raffle ticketsAnd the Winner Is…

by James R. Aist

“The Lord works in mysterious ways!”

When I was ten years old, my family was living on a dairy farm in rural, central Arkansas. Daddy had been studying to become a Methodist minister for some time, and he finally was ordained, making him eligible to become a Pastor. So, for the next eight years of my life, my family moved from little town to little town in Arkansas, staying in one place for only 2-3 years (that was the custom in the Methodist church back then). The second move was to a very small little village in North Central Arkansas called Evening Shade, population exactly 315. Now in Evening Shade, everyone knew almost everyone else, and everyone for sure knew the Preacher’s family. Becoming a Preacher’s kid had made me even more self-conscience than I was before, because it seemed that everyone now expected me to be a perfect specimen of holy living, especially since I had just reached the age of accountability. So I made doubly sure that my public behavior was stellar. Didn’t want to embarrass the family, you know.

As you might well imagine, small churches in rural Arkansas back then could not afford to pay their preachers very well, so we were, in effect, a financially challenged family, to put it in contemporary, politically correct lingo. Now, to help the local, financially challenged families keep food on the table, the village grocer, Mr. Shaver, would extend credit to them as needed. To reward and encourage their efforts to reduce their tabs, the grocer would award one raffle ticket for every dollar owed and would hold a drawing each month to determine who would walk away with a free bag of groceries that month. Well, the time had come for the month’s drawing, and we happened to have paid off our entire debt that month and had a very large number of tickets. So, Mama sent me down to the store with tickets in hand to represent our family and witness the drawing, thinking that we had a pretty good chance of winning the prize this time, and I would be there to carry it home to her. I was already beginning to feel some apprehension about this developing scenario, but I didn’t yet know why.

A large (for Evening Shade, that is) crowd had already gathered in the store by the time I got there, so I weaved my way through to the front of the store and put our family tickets into the bucket with all the other tickets. It looked to me like we must have had about 25% of the tickets, and suddenly I, too, became excited about our chances of winning; that would really be something! Mr. Shaver stirred the tickets and announced that the drawing was about to begin. A hush came over the eager onlookers. And that’s when things began to go south for me.

To my shock and chagrin, Mr. Shaver picked me to select the winning ticket out of the bucket! Already I was beginning to feel a major public embarrassment coming on. Why did he choose me, of all people, to pick the winner? Didn’t he know that we had a huge number of tickets and, therefore, a good chance of winning? Wouldn’t it at least look better if someone else drew my winning ticket? Nonetheless, the die was cast, and I approached the bucket with great trepidation, saying to myself, “I know we could use the free groceries, but please, Lord, let me draw someone else’s ticket!” I thrust my sweaty, trembling hand into the mass of tickets, all the way down to the bottom of the bucket, somehow hoping that this strategy would spare me, the Preacher’s kid, the embarrassment of drawing my own winning ticket.

Well, I don’t know if it was because I had unwittingly committed some unpardonable sin, or God just didn’t like me for some reason, but, alas, the winning ticket belonged to the Aist family, sure enough! It was one of those moments where you dream — nay, you hope desperately — that you are in some sort of nightmare, from which you will awaken shortly to realize that none of it is real. But alack, no dream; it was really real, and I felt humiliated in front of “the whole town.” In a flash, a series of thoughts raced through my mind: “Now everyone will think that the whole thing was rigged. They’ll think this Preacher’s kid must have been in on it! How can I ever live this down?” Of course everyone cheered when the winner was announced, pretending to be happy for us because they knew we could surely use the free food, but I knew what they were really thinking: “Well, isn’t that just peachy; and he’s the Preacher’s kid!”

As humiliated as I was, I was still eager to get home with a bag of free food to show Mama. My older sister spent most of the afternoon trying to convince me to not be embarrassed, but I was only 12.

(For more articles on TRUE TALES, click HERE)

by

Repentance: Confess, Turn, Persevere

English: Manasseh's Sin and Repentance; as in ...Repentance: Confess, Turn, Persevere

James R. Aist

Introduction

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

There is a belief within the Christian church that repentance from sins is not necessary for salvation. This belief is a heresy called “antinomianism” that can be traced back to the Pauline letters. Antinomianism holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation. What this heresy has right is that whatever the Bible calls “sin” is, in fact, sin. However, the denial of the need for repentance of that sin in order to go to heaven flies in the face of the biblical witness. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and Paul all taught that repentance is mandatory, not optional (Luke 13:1-5, Acts 13:24, Acts 26:20, 2 Peter 3:9).  In fact, Jesus began his ministry preaching repentance leading to salvation: “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-16). After His ascension, Jesus prophesied that, going forward, repentance would be a requirement for the forgiveness of sins: “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,  and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47). Jesus came preaching repentance from sin, not acceptance of sin (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 5:32), and He was still calling for repentance after his ascension into heaven (Revelation 2, 3). According to the Bible, repentance is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 24:27; Luke 24:46-47) and for salvation (Acts 11:8, Acts 20:21, 2 Peter 3:9). Because repentance is such an essential element in the salvation process, it is important to understand what genuine repentance really is and how it comes about.

Confess

The first step on the road to repentance is to agree with God that what you have done is wrong, i.e., that it is “sin” (1 John 1:9). This may be experienced as Godly sorrow and/or a change of heart regarding your sin (2 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Kings 8:46-47). As a result, you will feel compelled to confess in your mind and with your mouth that you have sinned (2 Samuel 12:12-13).

Turn

The second step on the road to repentance is to actually turn from your sin (2 Chronicles 7:14, Matthew 3:8, Acts 26:20). That means that you make a quality decision to stop doing the sinful thing you have been doing and then follow through on your decision and stop doing it. This is where the genuineness of your commitment to your decision is tested and proven; it’s the really hard part. We are all familiar with the phrase “Actions speak louder than words”, and Jesus said “By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:20). Without turning, your confession is, at best, questionable and to no avail.

Persevere

The third and most rewarding step on the road to repentance is perseverance. It is common experience to be tempted to return to our old, sinful ways after we have turned from them. Unfortunately, it is also common experience to give in to such temptations by choosing to do so (James 1:13-14). But God will give us the strength to resist temptation when we submit ourselves to Him and resist the Devil (James 4:7). To really conquer sin means not only to confess and turn from it initially, but also to persevere in our repentance to the end.

Repentance Is a Process

When we become born-again, all of our past sins are instantly forgiven. We refer to that wholesale forgiveness event as “justification.”  But, sadly, we remain vulnerable to various temptations that can lead us to sin again (1 John 1:10). Over time, the Holy Spirit, with our cooperation, cleanses us from more and more of our remaining sins in a process called “sanctification”, whereby we are convicted of a residual sin, confess it (1 John 1:9), turn away from it and, eventually, conquer it. This is why we born-again Christians often detect sin in both ourselves and in our fellow believers, even though we are already “saved”; these are simply sins that we have not yet allowed the Holy Spirit to cleanse us of. The presence of such sins in our lives does not mean, necessarily, that we are not really saved; it may just mean that we are still a “work in progress.” So, let’s be patient and forgiving toward one another as we travel the road to repentance. It’s a busy and crowded road indeed!

Summary

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus.” (Acts 3:19-20)

(For more articles on BIBLICAL TEACHINGS, click HERE)

by

Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

APA "gender identity disorder" prote...Mental Health Organizations: Political Slaves of the Homosexual Movement

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

 “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” — Barbara Gittings, Pro-homosexual Activist

Introduction

Homosexuality advocates like to appeal to position statements published by American mental health organizations to fortify their bogus claims concerning homosexuality issues. One would expect such professional groups to be a reliable source of unbiased information on such matters and that their official positions would be based on the most up-to-date and scientifically sound and objective research available. Unfortunately, where matters of homosexuality are concerned, this is not the case. Let’s take a look at how our mental health organizations have become political slaves of the homosexual movement.

The Take-over of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Beginning in the 1960s and continuing through the 1980s, radical homosexual activists (including both gays and straights sympathetic to the “gay agenda”), from within the organization and from without, conducted an organized campaign to transform the APA from a relatively open-minded, objective professional organization to a demonstrably biased, political mouthpiece for the homosexual movement (3, 7, 10). The most comprehensive and heavily documented record of these events — including numerous first-hand, published accounts — is a book (11) written by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist who is sympathetic with everything the homosexual activists did and applauded the ultimate outcome of their activities (3); these are published, historical facts. I will mention here a few of the most important developments in this campaign.

Using verbal bullying, physical violence, disruption and commandeering of meetings, and vicious verbal threats, they forced the APA to form a special committee to represent their radical political agenda and populated the committee with only like-minded, pro-homosexual members (3, 7, 8, 10, 11). They then proceeded to get homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, even though most of the APA members did not agree with that change. There were no new, scientific or clinical findings that precipitated this change; rather, it was predicated solely on the political agenda of the homosexuality activists. Witness, for example, the quote at the beginning of this article by Barbara Gittings, a pro-homosexual activist who was involved in the process: “It was never a medical decision — and that’s why I think the action came so fast… It was a political move.” “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (10). This campaign was an essential element of their scheme to remove the stigma that was associated with the designation of homosexuality as a mental disorder (3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11). Despite the mounds of published, historical documentation to the contrary, the APA still claims that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was based solely on the results of scientific studies showing that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is nothing short of a transparent attempt to re-write the history of that decision-making process in order to make it appear that the decision was scientifically objective and medically appropriate. Homosexuality advocates, and the APA itself, most often cite a research article published by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 as proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but that article has been exposed as a blatant example of pseudo-science at its worst (9); the research breaks almost every standard of proper scientific process and inquiry that can produce reliable and valid conclusions. This is a good example of the disregard that the APA has for properly conducted, objective scientific research where homosexuality is concerned.

The Campaign Mushrooms

Having accomplished this first major milestone in their campaign, the homosexual activists then proceeded to other objectives within the APA. They began to develop pro-homosexual position statements that they forced the APA to endorse and publish over the succeeding years, without regard to published scientific and clinical studies to the contrary (1, 2, 3, 7, 8). They developed and carried out a related campaign to threaten, intimidate, disenfranchise and even bring lawsuits against APA members and their institutions who provided therapy and counseling treatment to dissatisfied homosexual people who came to them seeking help to change their sexual preference (6). Eventually, they managed to limit officially approved professional therapy for homosexuals to only those approaches that affirm the homosexual orientation of their clients and help them to feel good about it. And, using overt threats to repeat their treatment of the APA, they forced other mental health organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, to give in to their demands and follow the political path taken by the APA (3, 5, 7, 8, 10). Needless to say, it didn’t take long for our other medical and health organizations to fall into line and adopt similar positions regarding homosexuality (7, 8, 10).

The End Result

Now let’s fast-forward to 2013. Where matters of homosexuality are concerned, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are controlled and dominated by radical, extremely biased, homosexual activists, many, if not most, of whom are openly practicing homosexuals themselves. Objectivity, scientific principles, factual evidence and honesty have taken a back seat to pro-homosexual political objectives (3, 4, 5, 9).

My point

It is fair to say that, at this point in time, one cannot rely on either of these professional societies to provide objective, scientifically sound and up-to-date viewpoints concerning many aspects of homosexuality. So, don’t be fooled when homosexuality advocates appeal to position statements of either of these organizations to support their pro-homosexual arguments; their sources are politically motivated, radical homosexual activists who simply cannot be trusted to be either objective or truthful.

(For more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited

1. Aist, J.R. 2012. Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?  (click HERE)

2. Aist, J.R. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!  (click HERE)

3. Dannemeyer, W. 1989. Shadow in the Land, Homosexuality in America. Ignatius Press, San Francisco. Pp. 21-39.

4. Hale, M. 2012. CORRECTED: APA considers eliminating gender identity disorder, replace with ‘gender dysphoria’.  (click HERE)

5. Hoffman, M.C. 2012. Former President of APA Says Organization Controlled by ‘Gay Rights’ Movement. (click HERE)

6. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. Chapter 13. Intimidating Reparative Therapists. Pp. 80-87. (click HERE)

7. Sorba, R. 2012. Homosexuality and Mental Health. (click HERE)

8. Whitehead, N.E. and B.K. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It. Introduction. (click HERE)

9. Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

10. Sorba, R. 2007. The Intimidation of the American Psychiatric Association. The “Born Gay” Hoax. Chapter 7. Pp. 20-27.  (click HERE)

11. Bayer, R. 1981. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.  Basic Books, Inc., New York. Pp. 101-154.