Prison Worker Barred from Participating in Chapel Services for Quoting Scripture About Homosexuality

Trayhorn-compressedCAMBRIDGESHIRE, U.K. — A Christian prison worker who was barred from participating in chapel services after quoting a Scripture that references homosexuality will have his case heard by an employment tribunal today.

Barry Trayhorn has been employed as a gardener at HMP Littlehey since 2011, and since 2012 he has volunteered to help with the chapel services at the invitation of the prison chaplain. The facility houses those who have been convicted of sex offenses.

In May of last year, while leading worship, Trayhorn felt led to quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and exhort prisoners that forgiveness is available to those who will repent.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God,” the Scripture reads. “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

“As I led the worship, I spoke about the wonder of God’s love and the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ to those who recognize their sin and repent,” Trayhorn said in a statement. “I simply said what the Bible says. Prisoners need to hear God’s word just as much as anyone else. If people come to a Christian chapel service, we cannot hold back the gospel truth that God forgives those who repent.”

A complaint was lodged against Trayhorn four days later, and he was barred from assisting further with chapel services, being advised that he had violated prison policy and U.K. equality laws for speaking against homosexuality.

“The mere mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible verses that I quoted provoked complaint,” he outlined. “I was barred from taking part in chapel services and trouble came my way.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Trayhorn was advised that a disciplinary hearing would ensue.

In August of last year, he left work after the stress literally made him sick, and officially resigned in November, citing harassment for his faith. A disciplinary hearing was held a day later.

He has now taken his case to an employment tribunal, which will hear his case today in Bedford. Trayhorn is contending that he was essentially forced out of his main job as a gardener through the way he was treated for quoting Scripture on homosexuality during the chapel service.

“It is astonishing that Barry was forced out of a sex offenders’ prison for repeating what the Bible says about sexual behaviour—during a chapel service—as he spoke about repentance and forgiveness,” said Christian Concern President Andrea Williams in a statement. “No one should be denied an opportunity to hear what God has to say about the way to restoration, least of all those in prison for sexual offenses.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Striving to bring you the news without compromise and with Christ in focus, we press on despite recent changes in Facebook and Google's algorithms, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational site revenue. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News Network supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • The Last Trump

    “It is astonishing that Barry was forced out of a sex offenders’ prison for repeating what the Bible says about sexual behaviour—during a chapel service—as he spoke about repentance and forgiveness”.
    Yes, that really says it all right there, doesn’t it?
    Just soak that in for a second and let the sheer madness of it wash over you! Mindboggling.

    • Josey

      yep, bizarro world, upside down.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        World gone crazy for sure. What is weird is that the passage quoted paints a rather large brush with respect to the sins listed. It is not condemning merely homosexual behavior.

  • Emmanuel

    They only focus on the first two verses but ignore the rest of it; the answer and solution. Kinda like the verse about love they neighbor, they ignore the first half of that verse.

  • Chasity Portis

    Pray and lift them up in the UK and the U.S. because that’s the kind of legislation that the Obama Administration and liberals are working on for this country!!! Obama and Hilliary Clinton both have stated that gay rights trump religious rights!!! BUT GOD!!! Let’s pray!!!

  • Jean Adams

    Howard Conder who started Revelation TV keeps being attacked for quoting such scriptures. The U.K. stopped Revelation TV from broadcasting in England because of this, so they now broadcast from Spain. Howard refused to stop telling others about the word of God, and so should everyone else. Barry Trayhorn do not be dismayed. Some seed will fall on stony ground but you have to keep sowing.

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      Amen. Even if some of the seed falls on stony ground we know that others will fall and be receivseeedsd by others. We can not give up no matter the cost.

  • robertzaccour

    Is he a chaplain or a PC pundit? Which one is it?

  • Dave_L

    People do not like the tincture of the Word of God poured out full strength. But full strength cures a lot of ills.

  • afchief

    It won’t be long before the law suits will start flying over how the Church is violating the “rights” of homos by refusing to perform homo weddings. The removal of tax exempt status will soon follow and shortly after that, the Churches will slowly begin to go underground. The Gospel will soon be considered “Hate Speech” by large segments of the population and within law.

    Does that sound like “crazy talk”?

    Homo marriage was “crazy talk” just 20 years ago and……here we are.

    • acontraryview

      “Does that sound like “crazy talk”?”

      Yes, it does.

      • afchief

        To a homo, yes. To a Christian, NO!!!

        • acontraryview

          “To a Christian, NO!!!”

          For clarification: To a paranoid, hyperbolic Christian who has little to no understanding of our Constitution, NO!!!.

          • afchief

            You know the Constitution??? Don’t make me laugh.

          • acontraryview

            I wasn’t commenting on my level of knowledge of the Constitution. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge, which you have shown time and again.

          • afchief

            Have you taken your meds today?

    • JGC

      “t won’t be long before the law suits will start flying over how the Church is violating the “rights” of homos by refusing to perform homo weddings”
      Except that churches wouldn’t be violating their rights, as they’re not required to offer the sacrament of marriage to couples when doing so violates their tradition’s articles of faith.. Just as current law doesn’t require churches celebrate marriages between inter-faith couples or couples where one or both partners have previously been married and divorced, it doesn’t require they celebrate religious marriages for same sex couples unless they choose voluntarily to do so.

      • afchief

        Would Jesus officiate a homosexual wedding? NO!!!!

        • JGC

          You have no way of knowing that is true, afchief. It’s highly unlikely Jesus, if such a man did indeed exist, would share our modern prejudices.

          • afchief

            Would Jesus Unite Two Men in Marriage? I believe the answer is very clear. Let’s go ahead and clear up a few things—marriage was the idea of Jesus’ Father. He is the one who defined it as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus told us that He came to fulfill the law, not do away with it.

            Homosexuality is sin. It is perverted! It is deviant! It is death!

          • JGC

            How have you factually established that marriage was
            the idea of Jesus’s father’ and that he defined it as a union of one man and one woman?
            By what rational argument is homosexuality perverted or deviant, rather than simple emblematic of the normal variability of human sexual expression?

          • afchief

            Genesis 2:24 (NASB) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

            Before 1973 the APA (American Psychiatric Association ) classified Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Since then it was bought out and taken over by the homofascists (I think the book was called ’81 words’, and it was a glowing account of how homosexual psychologists etc. took over the APA so that they could change the definition of homosexuality from a mental illness. Truly the inmates run the asylum.) As Dr. Cummings, former president of the APA, said, the opinions of the APA on homosexuality are no longer based on science and there was no new science to declassify Homosexuality as a mental disorder at that time or now.

            This is so typical. Normal people would move on. The homosexuals, if they can’t get affirmation, they’ll take it.

          • JGC

            Afchief, you do realize that scripture and evidence are two different things. right? And that citing scripture doesn’t support any claim that that marriage was an idea of Jesus’s father’ (presumably the carpenter Joseph) who defined it as a union of one man and one woman?

          • afchief

            Matthew 19:5 (NASB) and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

            Ephesians 5:31 (NASB) For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

          • JGC

            Matthew 19:5 addresses divorce, not sexual orientation.
            Ephesians describes how men should treat their wives, and also does not address sexual orientation.

            Neither represents evidence that Jesus’ father–whoever you believe that to be–had the idea for marriage or intended it to be only between partners of the opposite sex. In fact, if we’re going to embrace a biblical standard for matrimony, it wouldn’t be ‘between one man and one woman’, it would be between one man and as many wives as he could support (with concubines freely available on the side).

          • robertzaccour

            Multiple wives although documented in the Bible is not a Biblically supported practice. Notice that the people with multiple wives tended to have a lot of consequences because of it.

          • JGC

            Not biblically supported?

            There’s are no verses in the bible that condemn Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David or anyone else as a consequence of having multiple wives (in fact god attests he would have given David even more wives if that had been his wish in 2 Sam 12(. Jesus himself speaks in support of polygamy in Matthew 19, with regard to the Old Testament directive that a widow should be married to her former husband’ brother following the first husband’s death.

          • afchief

            God’s heart has ALWAYS been from the beginning of man…one man and one woman in marriage as Genesis 2:24 states.

          • JGC

            How have you reliably established that that is 1) god exists and 2) ‘god’s heart’ has always been marriages may only be between one man and one woman? It seemed to me in your post above you admitted this isn’t something you know, only something you personally believe.

          • afchief

            It is what I know!!!

            that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            Romans 1:19-20

          • JGC

            So your entire argument in support of god’s existence ultimately reduces to nothing other than “I just know!”?

          • afchief

            Yep, because it is written on my heart. You also know, but are suppressing the truth with sin. As your heart becomes harder because of sin, you become more and more bitter. Over time hatred slowly fills your heart. You begin to hate the truth and those who stand for it. You slide deeper into sin. You have been totally given over to a depraved mind. There is nothing left but to exist and wait for death. And then the second death will come. You are a walking dead man. There is no life (spiritual) in you.

            James 2:26 (NASB) For just as the body without the spirit is dead

            Without the Spirit of God you are a walking dead man.

          • afchief

            This is what a reprobate minds does….it lies….. it divulges in gross immorality….it sins… brings forth death!!!

            A rational and logical mind knows that a man has an “outie”! A woman has an “innie”. The two were made to come together. Two men were not made to come together. Nor are two women. A reprobate mind does not know this. It thinks anything goes. It is blind to the truth. It lives in lies. It gratifies the flesh. It indulges in strange flesh. It’s mind is twisted. It is perverted. It is deviant. It curses God. It lives for today. It is walking death. There is no life only sorrow and pain. There is no peace only hurt. It lashes out at anyone who disagrees. It is constantly seeking help. Never finding it.
            Always rejecting the one who can set them free……Jesus.

          • JGC

            ” The two were made to come together.”

            Anatomical features weren’t ‘made’ at all, let alone to realize a preferred and predetermined function.

            “Two men were not made to come together. Nor are two women.”
            By what rational argument is this so?

          • afchief

            Like I said a reprobate mind cannot see this. Because “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” and ” For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [h]indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            Your mind is trapped in sin. Like I said a rational and logical mind sees how God made a man and a woman and that the two are made to come together. A reprobate mind does not!!!

          • afchief

            Since you have a reprobate mind I expect lies from you!!!!

            Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders
            BY RYAN SORBA

            “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, Same-gender sex activist

            Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

            In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

            Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

            Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

            On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

            Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)

            After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)

            On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

            Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

            Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

            Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

            Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

            Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

            It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)

            Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)

            Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)

            Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)

            Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.

            Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.

            Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)

            The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.

            Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”

            Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)

            Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)

            If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.

            Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

          • JGC

            Afchief, ‘m seeing in your posts a lot of assertions that the change in the DSM was a result of supposed intimidation.

            What I’m not seeing–and what you’ll need to provide if you wish to support your argument–is credible evidence demonstrating that simply being homosexual meets the criteria necessary to be considered a mental illness.

            Get back to me when you have some to offer.

          • afchief

            You are making me laugh!!! You need some criteria???? Here is a major one; The rectum is not a sexual organ!!!! Any rational and logical mind knows this. A reprobate mind does NOT!!!

          • JGC

            Afchief, first you’re continuing to confuse function and purpose, and to presume that anatomic features only have single dedicated purposes. Do you believe that people who engage in kissing suffer from mental illness, since the mouth isn’t a sexual organ but instead one whose only ‘legitimate’ purpose is the consumption of food?

            Second, simply repeating “reprobate mind!” isn’t sufficient support for your claims.

          • afchief

            This is what a reprobate does….it justifies sin. It denies the truth. It is blinded by sin. It gratifies the flesh. It indulges in strange flesh. It lies when confronted with truth. It does not think rationally. It exists for today. It does not think about eternity. It is blinded by the god of this world (satan). It is a walking dead person waiting for death. It’s only hope is Jesus

            And by the way kissing is mentioned in the bible.

          • JGC

            You’ve yet to demonstrate what you believe into be sin and assert is ‘the truth’ actually is sinful or truthful, afcheif.

          • afchief

            Did I not say a reprobate mind cannot see the truth? I sure did! The fact that you think the “back door” is a sexual organ proves my point!!!

          • JGC

            you’re in dire need of new clichéd responses, afcheif

          • afchief

            Naw! I will always use the truth.

  • Cosmic Mastermind

    Human rights laws in Europe come before freedom of speech; in this case Barry Trayhorn’s freedom of speech is curtailed because what he is saying is considered hate-speech.

    Personally I think any Christian who voluntarily enters a church or chapel has no right to complain about what is read out from The Bible, whether it is good or bad, you can’t cherry-pick The Bible and ignore the parts that rotten.

  • Ngetich Vincent

    Wah? bravo Barry. Be yourself by maintaining your identity. never be intimidated with what other peoples wishes, everybody has a reason for living in this world………