Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Pride Month is about breaking the laws of hospitality? That's news.

Happy Pride Month, LGBTQ TexAggies. Ignore the *******s and enjoy your lives.

---

Learn something new every day. So "sodomy" means "being rude to travelers" How was that ever enforced when we had anti-sodomy laws?

---

When was the term "sodomy" created and by whom?

---

.

Venerable Tom Bodett, who tried to shame other Motel Chains for their inhospitality by not leaving the light on.

---

Ora pro nobis, Ven. Tom.

Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Lol. I like how you can't even engage in the thought experiment. Is it a little too uncomfortable?

---

Would be more than happy to engage in a thought experiment, but that wasn't your claim. You claimed the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and not homosexuality, then tried to throw up a hypothetical as a smokescreen to try and deflect from your failure to support

---

Ezekiel is pretty clear: " Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." And this verse is in reference to the sins of Jerusalem as a comparison. Homosexuality was never listed as a concern in Jerusalem.

---

They were haughty and did a detestable thing, as in singular, in front of me. Again, I'll explain to you that detestable thing, used in the singular form, using the same language in Leviticus is homosexual sex. This is attested to by the Church fathers, who compare the sex that was had in sodom and Gomorrah with rain falling on barren ground, since neither will bear fruit.

---

So in your world they wouldn't have been destroyed if they raped women?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

You think the destruction of S&G was about breaking the laws of hospitality?

---

Yes of course, Lot offered his daughters who had never had sex with a man to a crowd of strangers who committed the horrible sin of asking to "know" the two gentlemen upstairs, and obviously not to have sex with them, even though scripture uses the same word as when Adam had "knowledge" of Eve and sired Cain.

Furthermore God calls what the sodomites did "an abomination" in front of him, which is the exact same as homosexual sex is called in Leviticus, but again, it is all circumstantial and advanced biblical scholarship by homoadjacent biblical scholars know sodom was destroyed because dudes wanted to meet some travelers

---

So if the crowd had said, "You know what, Lot, you're right. We shouldn't be gay. We're going to rape your daughters instead," then God would have breathed a sigh of relief and let the city stand?

---

Of course not. God is against all sin, whether it be sexual immorality or some other sin. Homosexuality is just one form of sexual immorality. It isn't special.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Lol. I like how you can't even engage in the thought experiment. Is it a little too uncomfortable?

---

Would be more than happy to engage in a thought experiment, but that wasn't your claim. You claimed the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and not homosexuality, then tried to throw up a hypothetical as a smokescreen to try and deflect from your failure to support

---

Ezekiel is pretty clear: " Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." And this verse is in reference to the sins of Jerusalem as a comparison. Homosexuality was never listed as a concern in Jerusalem.

---

They were haughty and did a detestable thing, as in singular, in front of me. Again, I'll explain to you that detestable thing, used in the singular form, using the same language in Leviticus is homosexual sex. This is attested to by the Church fathers, who compare the sex that was had in sodom and Gomorrah with rain falling on barren ground, since neither will bear fruit.

---

So in your world they wouldn't have been destroyed if they raped women?

---

I have no idea, God does a lot of things that I don't understand, especially in the Old Testament. That's like asking me if God was justified in killing the first born children of Egypt, of course, because He is Justice. "Vengeance is Mine". I cannot presume to know the mind of God, I can access his rules and try to understand his will through the gift of reason and prayer, but theorizing what a being that has perfect knowledge and sits out of town would do differently is impossible because that is a world that doesn't exist.

The fact that Lot quickly ushered the strangers away from the city square almost suggests he knew what was going to happen to them, as if it had happened before…

Regarding Sodom, God had just finished discussing with Abraham about the destruction of Sodom. Abraham argued God down to 10 righteous men as a minimum number to spare the city from destruction. God was already talking about how grievous their sin was before anything else even happened, and Ezekiel is pretty explicit about the nature of that sin. They had abundance but neglected the poor and needy

God sends angels to "find" 10 righteous men, starting with the one man they knew was righteous, Lot. Now when any ancient ruler sent messengers anywhere, they had the full authority and majesty of their sovereign. Ancient kings and emperors didn't have telegraph, phones, or the internet. They sent messengers with credentials to make their wishes known. If you assault a king's messenger, it's the same as attacking the king. Now, when the angels arrived, a crowded showed up to gang rape them. God's subsequent decision to wipe Sodom off the map was the same things any ancient ruler would have done, whether it was the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks, or Carthaginians. Any king or emperor whose messengers were threatened or assaulted in this way would have reacted the same way.

So what was the sin? The arrogance of the Sodomites led them to think they could mistreat anyone without consequence, even royal (or heavenly) messengers. God already knew they were mistreating the poor and needy, now He had all the confirmation He needed by the way they wanted to abuse His messengers. What if they had only threatened to torture God's messengers instead of rape them? Would that have been any different or better? Would God have spared Sodom if they only threatened to torture His messengers? Of course not

"It's about homosexual sex"

Pontifical Biblical Commission weighs in,

"The story, however, is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by irrepressible homosexual cravings; rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore claims to humiliate him, forcing him to undergo an infamous treatment of submission. . ."We must therefore say that the story about the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gibeah) illustrates a sin that consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the stranger, a behaviour judged very serious and therefore deserving to be sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless stranger, is a principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment."

- What is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology (2019)

+++

Anticipating some "voices of dissent" who would presume the church's magisterial teaching on this passage of scripture as an opening to normalizing same sex marriage- "Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Commission, firmly rejected such a possibility, saying, "[t]here does not exist any 'opening' to unions between persons of the same sex as some people erroneously have claimed."

PabloSerna said:

---

"It's about homosexual sex"

Pontifical Biblical Commission weighs in,

"The story, however, is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by irrepressible homosexual cravings; rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore claims to humiliate him, forcing him to undergo an infamous treatment of submission. . ."We must therefore say that the story about the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gibeah) illustrates a sin that consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the stranger, a behaviour judged very serious and therefore deserving to be sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless stranger, is a principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment."

- What is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology (2019)

+++

Anticipating some "voices of dissent" who would presume the church's magisterial teaching on this passage of scripture as an opening to normalizing same sex marriage- "Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Commission, firmly rejected such a possibility, saying, "[t]here does not exist any 'opening' to unions between persons of the same sex as some people erroneously have claimed."

---

It's about homosexual sex, it says it's about homosexual sex in the passages right before the one you cut and pasted

Quote:

---

blamed for a disgraceful sexual practice, called 'sodomy,' consisting in the erotic relationship with people of the same sex. This would seem to have, at first glance, clear support in the biblical account. In Genesis 19 it is said, in fact, that two 'angels' hosted for the night in the house of Lot, are besieged by the 'men of Sodom,' young and old, all the population at large, with the intention of sexually abusing these strangers. The Hebrew verb used here is 'to know,' a euphemism to indicate sexual relations, as confirmed by the proposal of Lot, who, in order to protect his guests, is willing to sacrifice his two daughters who 'have not known man.'

---

This is the same modern agenda played out time and time again. Whisper the orthodoxy, but then massage it into a nice liberal package so New Ways Ministry and the pro-open borders crowd can tweet to the masses.

Examine several facts of the above:

1. it's all of 4 years old
2. it uses words like "entire" "dominated" and "irrepressible" to hide the fact that it was "mostly" "ruled" and "uncontrolled"
3. it takes a cautionary tale on the dangers of homosexual behabior and spins it into a warning about treating guests (read immigrants) with hospitality lest you be destroyed.

Serviam said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

You think the destruction of S&G was about breaking the laws of hospitality?

---

Yes of course, Lot offered his daughters who had never had sex with a man to a crowd of strangers who committed the horrible sin of asking to "know" the two gentlemen upstairs, and obviously not to have sex with them, even though scripture uses the same word as when Adam had "knowledge" of Eve and sired Cain.

Furthermore God calls what the sodomites did "an abomination" in front of him, which is the exact same as homosexual sex is called in Leviticus, but again, it is all circumstantial and advanced biblical scholarship by homoadjacent biblical scholars know sodom was destroyed because dudes wanted to meet some travelers

---

I believe what scripture says about the sin of acting on same sex relationships. But to specifically call out sodomy among gays is to also overshadow the fact that statistically, sodomy occurs far more between married heterosexual couples than gay couples.
Of course they don't have a month overtly celebrating sodomy among married hetero couples since its a sin. But if the issue is 'sodomy', married hetero couples need to check themselves as well.

I'm not a fan of pride month for many reasons, but I'm afraid I see posts like this often as satisfying peoples own triumphalism rather than genuine concern to turn people away from their sin.

Posts like this don't change the minds of Christians who already believe what scripture says....And it certainly is less likely to bring people to God. So when people post this stuff, I have to wonder if its for God's glory or their own.

Obviously you cannot post the whole text, however, it is clear in their comments (which I cited) what this passage in the Bible is about and is not about.

That you insist on interpreting this scripture in your own way, because it not the Magisterial teaching, says more about you and others who would seek to use the holy Bible as a means to other than salvation - is troubling.

Homosexual persons have existed since biblical times and are now, it would seem, are coming out of the proverbial closet. The good news is that God calls them as God calls all of us to come to the table of plenty.

By your logic, from what I understand of it, you want to focus on the sex act and not on the person. God sees us beyond those inclinations and occasional failings. The hope is that by coming home to the Father's house we can be full heirs to the Kingdom of God regardless of our sexual orientation. We have the sacrament of confession to hone our lives to the will of God and we have the sacrament of the Eucharist to more perfectly participate in the life of Christ. This last part ties perfectly into the real message about Sodom and Gomorrah - that Jesus is the one righteous person who could have saved them.

Recall that Abraham had bargained with God from 50 down to 10, in order the save those people from destruction. There were not even 10. 10 is significant in that it was seen as a minimum for a quorum. Then we read that the angel spars Zoar from a similar destruction because of Lot.

While you spend your time focusing on the sex act, God could use your help spreading the good news of salvation to your community instead. Here is hoping you will one day.

Fair point, but the definition of "sodomy" has changed quite a bit over the years. The identification of sodomy with a single specific sex act is very recent, as in decades

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Fair point, but the definition of "sodomy" has changed quite a bit over the years. The identification of sodomy with a single specific sex act is very recent, as in decades

---

First English usage in 1297.

I'm pretty sure you made my point. What constitutes an "unnatural form of sexual intercourse" changes with the times. The legal definition in America was all over the place. It also included certain acts, but it could include all sorts of other things deemed "unnatural"

Edit: I should definitely stop looking for etymology source material for this discussion while at work

PabloSerna said:

---

Obviously you cannot post the whole text, however, it is clear in their comments (which I cited) what this passage in the Bible is about and is not about.

That you insist on interpreting this scripture in your own way, because it not the Magisterial teaching, says more about you and others who would seek to use the holy Bible as a means to other than salvation - is troubling.

Homosexual persons have existed since biblical times and are now, it would seem, are coming out of the proverbial closet. The good news is that God calls them as God calls all of us to come to the table of plenty.

By your logic, from what I understand of it, you want to focus on the sex act and not on the person. God sees us beyond those inclinations and occasional failings. The hope is that by coming home to the Father's house we can be full heirs to the Kingdom of God regardless of our sexual orientation. We have the sacrament of confession to hone our lives to the will of God and we have the sacrament of the Eucharist to more perfectly participate in the life of Christ. This last part ties perfectly into the real message about Sodom and Gomorrah - that Jesus is the one righteous person who could have saved them.

Recall that Abraham had bargained with God from 50 down to 10, in order the save those people from destruction. There were not even 10. 10 is significant in that it was seen as a minimum for a quorum. Then we read that the angel spars Zoar from a similar destruction because of Lot.

While you spend your time focusing on the sex act, God could use your help spreading the good news of salvation to your community instead. Here is hoping you will one day.

---

I don't insist on interpreting scripture my own way, I insist on interpreting scripture the way it has been interpreted in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years until a very liberal Pontiff took over, remade all of the vatican institutions in his image, and then started issuing papers virtually citing only himself. My church is older than 4 years old, I don't consider things like "heal me with your mouth" magisterial even though a contributor is now the head of the CDF (notice I didn't call it the Holy Inquisition).

My focus on the sex act and not the person is not "by my logic" it's the teaching of the Church, that separates what it considers the "grave depravity" of the action from the person's attraction itself which is merely "intrinsically disordered".

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm pretty sure you made my point. What constitutes an "unnatural form of sexual intercourse" changes with the times. The legal definition in America was all over the place. It also included certain acts, but it could include all sorts of other things deemed "unnatural"

Edit: I should definitely stop looking for etymology source material for this discussion while at work

---

Well the OED disagrees that identification of sodomy with a single specific sex act is "very recent." Everyone knows what "esp. that of one male with another" is referring to.

You're correct, but let me clarify my previous statement. The identification of sodomy with only a single specific sex act and no others is a recent development of the last few decades. For as long as the word has been around, it is also been used to refer to all other sorts of things besides what immediately comes to mind now

Archaeologists Uncover Companies' Rainbow Logos From Sodom And Gomorrah https://t.co/a6bljvEbXj pic.twitter.com/RkYBoIR3sz

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 3, 2024

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You're correct, but let me clarify my previous statement. The identification of sodomy with only a single specific sex act and no others is a recent development of the last few decades. For as long as the word has been around, it is also been used to refer to all other sorts of things besides what immediately comes to mind now

---

Like what?

I'm not really sure how explicity I'm allowed to be about that sort of thing on this board. So here's a link

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/12/what-is-sodomy.html

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm not really sure how explicity I'm allowed to be about that sort of thing on this board. So here's a link

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/12/what-is-sodomy.html

---

That article shows a 1697 Massachusetts law to refer to a single specific sex act and no others. Maybe you meant the definition broadening is a recent development?

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

Quote:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality.

---

What can't you do to man or beast? Sodomize them. The word does not include any sexual act, but a specific one. Even if you told me a woman sodomized another woman, I would think some sort of object was involved.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Fair point, but the definition of "sodomy" has changed quite a bit over the years. The identification of sodomy with a single specific sex act is very recent, as in decades

---

You make a good point...I think it used to include other things like oral technically and other things.

http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/sodomy_S.pdf

This is as in depth look into the terms historical use as anyone could want

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The article talks about how sodomy in that very law also refers to beastiality. For the purposes of the discussion, do you include beastiality as the grave sin of the city of Sodom?

I guess the whole thing just confuses me. The Bible is very clear that homosexual sex acts are wrong. The Bible isn't usually shy when talking about rape, incest, homosexuality, or anything like that. The Bible is also very explicit about the sin of Sodom. If the Bible had just said, "Sodom was destroyed due to men laying with men", that statement and justification would have fit right in. No one would have blinked twice. But the Bible doesn't say that. It says something explicity different. Blaming the destruction of Sodom on homosexuality is an easy example of eisegesis, which is the worst way to read and use Scripture

---

Is Jude in your Bible? Because it's pretty clear sexual sin is the reason there. Since we don't have to put scripture against itself to make a point, we can also note that any good Jew who knew the Torah before ezekiel would have know the law about sexual sin and seen what was coming. We don't need to pick one or the other to make a judgment. It's both and. There's no escaping fornication and sexual sin which leads to being inhospitable.

Serviam said:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I will never understand, and no I'm not trolling, how people can read the Bible and find a loving deity.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I will never understand, and no I'm not trolling, how people can read the Bible and find a loving deity.

---

Have you read the bible?

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I will never understand, and no I'm not trolling, how people can read the Bible and find a loving deity.

---

You don't think sacrificing yourself for the benefit of your beloved is loving?

Fair enough. I will admit to a blind spot regarding Jude for various reasons, but that is well outside this topic

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Fair enough. I will admit to a blind spot regarding Jude for various reasons, but that is well outside this topic

---

You would not be the only one, and that's understandable.

That's another reason I tried to connect it with the Torah, where we have consistent consequences for sexual sin and all involved, time and again. Fall after fall is the story of humanity and much of it is bound up in fornication. We could easily rattle off most of the names of the Genesis and how they suffered for it. When we look around us today and see it, we know the brokenness me punishment that comes with it so we too, should not be shocked if that's the conclusion of this teaching.

TJaggie14 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I will never understand, and no I'm not trolling, how people can read the Bible and find a loving deity.

---

Have you read the bible?

---

3 different translations, cover to cover, several times yes. I was also baptized, have attended church services in several countries, even sat through a Latin mass once.

The Abrahamic deity, an alledgedly omnipotent and omniscient being, commits multiple genocides, murders, and a filicide. It promises not only physical death, often in extremely cruel ways, but eternal torment if it's followers do not adhere to it's edicts and decrees.

The sacrifice mentioned above: said omniscient/omnipotent being committed a brutal filicide by proxy to "save" it's followers.... from the rules and system it established?

I'm not the only one who sees this, many non abrahamics find it extremely difficult to reconcile the Christian claim of "love" with the "do what I say or I will send you to a place of eternal torment forever" nature of it's godhead.

Couple points of order.

Same sex attraction is different than partaking in homosexual forms of intercourse. The church calls those who are same sex attracted to live in chastity like everyone else is called until they are married. Because marriage is ordained between man and woman and knowing one biblically is for couples who are married.

God calls homosexual intercourse an abomination as it is an unnatural ordering of society. Man and woman were made for each other, and commanded/blessed to be fruitful and multiply within the blessings of marriage.

Sodom and Gomorrah can be judged by both its inhospitableness and its pride, as well as its sexual immorality. All cities could be judged as not being hospitable to the poor, prideful, brutal, and demon worshipping. Seems the extra twist here is its sexual immorality, and so Gods extra twist isn't famine or military conquest but a more direct intervention that more shows God's judgement directly.

Homosexual sin is different than other sins inasmuch that the sinner is proud of their sin. I have sins, I have repeated fashions of sinning, but at the end of the day I go to confession and confess them all and turn back from my sins. Until I fall short again and I perform the cycle of repentance again. But, I do not sin 'with my hand held high' as the OT likes to refer to nonrepentant sinners (who are basically taking an oath to their sin). I do not identify with my sin, nor am I proud of it. It is what separates me from God.

I also think there is incredible irony the political landscape of #pride. They picked the rainbow, which was God's literal bow he set down vowing to never judge the world of its wickedness as a whole again until the end of time. They picked pride which is at its core the most deadly of sins to stand in front of God with pride. It was satan's pride and envy that led to him to rebel and be cast out.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Couple points of order.

Same sex attraction is different than partaking in homosexual forms of intercourse. The church calls those who are same sex attracted to live in chastity like everyone else is called until they are married. Because marriage is ordained between man and woman and knowing one biblically is for couples who are married.

God calls homosexual intercourse an abomination as it is an unnatural ordering of society. Man and woman were made for each other, and commanded/blessed to be fruitful and multiply within the blessings of marriage.

Sodom and Gomorrah can be judged by both its inhospitableness and its pride, as well as its sexual immorality. All cities could be judged as not being hospitable to the poor, prideful, brutal, and demon worshipping. Seems the extra twist here is its sexual immorality, and so Gods extra twist isn't famine or military conquest but a more direct intervention that more shows God's judgement directly.

Homosexual sin is different than other sins inasmuch that the sinner is proud of their sin. I have sins, I have repeated fashions of sinning, but at the end of the day I go to confession and confess them all and turn back from my sins. Until I fall short again and I perform the cycle of repentance again. But, I do not sin 'with my hand held high' as the OT likes to refer to nonrepentant sinners (who are basically taking an oath to their sin). I do not identify with my sin, nor am I proud of it. It is what separates me from God.

I also think there is incredible irony the political landscape of #pride. They picked the rainbow, which was God's literal bow he set down vowing to never judge the world of its wickedness as a whole again until the end of time. They picked pride which is at its core the most deadly of sins to stand in front of God with pride. It was satan's pride and envy that led to him to rebel and be cast out.

---

Agree.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TJaggie14 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I will never understand, and no I'm not trolling, how people can read the Bible and find a loving deity.

---

Have you read the bible?

---

3 different translations, cover to cover, several times yes. I was also baptized, have attended church services in several countries, even sat through a Latin mass once.

The Abrahamic deity, an alledgedly omnipotent and omniscient being, commits multiple genocides, murders, and a filicide. It promises not only physical death, often in extremely cruel ways, but eternal torment if it's followers do not adhere to it's edicts and decrees.

The sacrifice mentioned above: said omniscient/omnipotent being committed a brutal filicide by proxy to "save" it's followers.... from the rules and system it established?

I'm not the only one who sees this, many non abrahamics find it extremely difficult to reconcile the Christian claim of "love" with the "do what I say or I will send you to a place of eternal torment forever" nature of it's godhead.

---

With all due respect, I do not believe God killed Jesus.

I believe Jesus willingly offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins thus bringing about the atonement resulting in our salvation.

His blood has washed us clean. Hallelujah.

And Christianity is not about edicts or decrees in my opinion. It is about a relationship with our Creator made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

We are changed, born again, imputed with righteousness. It is truly a wonderful, joyful experience and leads to abundant life. And eternal life.

Gospel means good news. Sin separated us from God. The cross removed that separation. Oh happy day!

And as far as the OT killings and whatever, Jesus and the cross changed everything. Man is reconciled to God.