It's a Sin
According to the reports, the Conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church that took place at Andrews University on October 17-19, was organized by Richard Davidson and Roy Gane, professors of Old Testament at the Seminary, to counter the publications of John Jones and Fritz Guy, professors of Religion at La Sierra University, in Spectrum, and the campaign by Adventists against Proposition #8, placed on the November ballot in California to reverse the decision of the California High Court which had authorized same sex marriage.
When the Adventist campaign against Proposition #8 was launched, those participating in this web page reacted with some strong opinions. The reaction to the Conference at Andrews has been even more animated and informative. That two professors at the Seminary considered it necessary to combat the ideas proposed by two professors at La Sierra demonstrates that we are living in a defining stage in the history of the Adventist Church. The comments posted in this page in response to the reports of the Conference showed that at the core of the debate about homosexuality are not different exegetical methods, but different definitions of what is sin. Since this is the case, it is time to search for a biblical definition.
To begin with, let us look at the system established in Israel to cleanse sinners of their sins. According to the sacrificial system, sin is a spot on the person that prevents God from blessing, and instead provokes God’s cursing. Reading the descriptions of the different offerings for the expiation of different sins (Lev. 4-7), one is surprised to learn that no sacrifice is specified for what we would normally consider sin. The sins listed have to do with ritual purity, a point of view that we have definitely abandoned. Holiness is conceived as something that one acquires or looses by physical contact, and the sins for which sacrifices are specified, it must be noticed, are inadvertent sins, sins committed “unwittingly”.
In this context we must remember that according to the gospels Jesus ordered the lepers, once healed, to go to the temple and offer the corresponding sacrifice to be reintegrated to society (Mc. 1:40-44; Mt. 8:2; Lc. 17:12-14). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructed anyone who, already at the altar ready to perform a sacrifice, remembered that his brother had something against him to leave the sacrifice aside, go and reconcile himself with his brother, and then, by all means, return to the altar and offer the sacrifice (Mt. 5:23). Moreover, the Gospel of Luke tells us that the parents of Jesus went to Jerusalem and offered the required sacrifice for the purification of the mother and the child after childbirth (2:22-24).
After the resurrection, the disciples were found regularly at the temple at the hour of the morning and evening sacrifice (Acts 3:1). Acts of the Apostles also says that Paul was eager to be in Jerusalem to participate in the celebration of Passover and that when he arrived to the city he joined four men in Nazarite vows (21:17-26). In this way the first five books of the New Testament report that Jesus, his disciples and Paul viewed sin as ritual impurity which needs to be cleansed by a sacrifice at the temple. The references in Acts, in particular, indicate that the first Christians did not think that the death of Jesus had put an end to the temple and the need to atone for ritual impurities. This, I am afraid, creates a problem for those who wish to use Jesus and the apostles as moral guides.
On the other hand, we also learn that Jesus performed a prophetic act at the temple which, undoubtedly, was extraordinary by its violence. It is almost impossible to be certain as to the significance of this act. Was Jesus symbolically destroying the temple? Putting an end to the sacrificial system? Or, Putting an end to the abuses that had become parasitic to the sacrificial system? The first prophets of Israel, of course, had already proclaimed their opposition to the temple. In the classic words of Micah: “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” (6:6-7). Surely these rhetorical questions anticipate a negative answer.
Amos, Hosea, Micah and the other prophets openly declared themselves against the sacrificial system. According to them, what causes God to withdraw blessings and dispense curses as punishment is the abuse of the neighbor, the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor, the hypocrisy of trying to buy God, in other words, social and economic injustice and the abuse of religion for selfish ends. The solution to these evils is not sacrifices of oil, rams or, even, one’s first-born child (something which was also done in Israel). It is the discontinuation of such conduct. The prophets call the people to change course, to turn, to convert, as the drill sergeant shouts to the marching troops. For the prophets sin is not lack of ritual purity, or the wrongful handling of the sacred. It is immoral conduct. The sphere of sin does not have to do with the temple and its mediation between the sacred and the profane. It has to do with justice as the foundation of social and economic peace. In the famous words of Micah, what God demands is “only to do justice, to love covenant loyalty and to live life humbly in God’s company” (6:8).
In the third place, Judaism came to understand sin as the transgression of The Law, and in this way created a sphere parallel to the temple in which sin is a legal problem. The sacrificial system does not include sacrifices for the transgression of any of the ten commandments. Of course, it must be emphasized, The Law does not consist of only ten commandments. The Rabbis determined that The Law contains 612, and in it the transgression of any one of them is equally condemned. In this context, it must be remembered also that the Old Testament ignores that the sin of Adam and Eve brought with it The Fall of Humanity in a cosmic sin. The notion of The Fall entered Jewish theology with the rise of apocalypticism. In the Old Testament the paradigmatic sin that establishes the natural sinfulness of the people is the rebellions in the wilderness during the exodus.
We cannot overlook that both in the Old and the New Testament it is assumed that sins are the cause of all the misfortunes in life. Sickness, poverty, infertility of land, cattle or humans, defeat in the battle field, etc., are the direct consequence of sin. In other words, sin unleashes the wrath of God, as the negative aspect of God’s retributive justice. Apocalypticism, it seems, arouse in order to affirm God’s retributive justice while taking seriously the misfortunes of the innocent.
In Romans 1:19-3:20, Paul develops the idea presented in verse 18: the wrath of God of heaven is manifest against all iniquity. As the idea is developed it becomes clear that the wrath of God is manifest in sinners. At first, Paul uses concepts predominant in contemporary Judaism. Sin number one is idolatry, and number two is sexual irregularity. Paul emphasizes, however, that given that among Jews sin is the transgression of The Law, God is impartial. Therefore, both the Jews under the condemnation of The Law and the gentiles under the condemnation of their conscience are sinners. The section ends confirming the affirmation that all human beings are sinners by a series of quotes from the Scriptures. In summary, under The Law or under one’s conscience all are sinners and manifest the wrath of God.
Immediately, Paul takes up the idea expressed in 1:17: the justice of God is manifest in those who have faith, without the participation of either The Law or the conscience. While The Law and the conscience are agents that force sinners to admit they are living in a world fallen to the cosmic power of sin (a purely apocalyptic idea), these instruments of condemnation do not function in the world of the Second Adam, the world of those who have faith in the One Who Raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Those who through baptism participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ live in the new creation. In this creation sin is not the transgression of The Law, but the performance of what is contrary to faith. Christians who live by the power of the Spirit Who raised Jesus Christ from the dead sin when they act without being convinced that the Lord approves the way in which they are transposing their faith in God into a way of life that actualizes the presence of Christ in the world. Among those who participate in the creation of the Risen Christ, sin is not defined by The Law, but by faith, or more specifically, by the lack of faith(Rom. 14:5,14,23).
The fourth definition of sin that we find in the Bible has nothing to do with ritual purity. Paul explicitly dismisses the distinction between sacred and profane in the realm of being (Rom. 14:14). It has nothing to do with the norms of social and economic justice of one’s contemporaries. Even less has it to do with The Law, as Paul takes extraordinary pains to emphasize. This definition is neither social, nor economic, nor political nor religious. It is a spiritual definition. It is for those living by the power of the Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
So far I have limited myself to describe as succinctly as I can the definitions of sin I find in the Bible. The Bible does not tell me, however, what to do with these four definitions. The Bible does not tell us that we must distinguish between ritual and moral sins, or between carnal and spiritual sins, or between cardinal and ordinary sins. The Bible does not tell us whether these definitions are complementary or exclusive. If we do not wish to admit that these definitions reflect experiential changes in the life of the people of God through centuries and cultures, we must admit that choosing to specifically condemn only certain sins is culturally conditioned. Given these circumstances, we should not be surprised when we discover among us those who say homosexuality is a sin and those who deny it.
Search
- Donna Haerich on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Elaine Nelson on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Steve Moran on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Bonnie Dwyer on Mt. Ellis on the Brink of Winning Big
- Donna Haerich on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- victor on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Andre Reis on Hate Speech?
- Your Friend on Fascinating Adventist Mathematics
- Your Friend on Hate Speech?
- Donna Haerich on Hate Speech?
Comments
One can say that statistically it an't normal. It is more than 2 standard deviations from the mean about 8-10 percent of sexually actives.
One can say that it was God intention to be fruitful and multiple. Not self gratification.
On must leave it to God to declare it sin.
Certainly the Roman/ Greek sexual behavior was declared sin by Paul.
The rest is an institutinal problem. Who is entitled to membership etc.
For the individual--civility/compassion are in order.
That there are closet homosexuals in the SDA church goes without question. The issue is the militants who defy change and demand institutional acceptance.
Each organization will have to make its own determination.
If history tells us anything, It will be a long bitter struggle. Tom
Dr Weiss
The implications of what you lay out are enormous. I wonder how many has the courage to pursue them.
So many assumptions guide our reading of the Bible. I suspect that the reason creeds have played such an important part in Christendom is due to the complexities inherent in the Biblical documents. We crave clarity and when the Bible does not provide it, we resort to "fundamental beliefs" in which we edit out discordant themes. Like Paul we want a clear message that can function as a call to ideological arms.
Thank you Dr. Weiss.
That was the most interesting read I've had in a long time. Much to ponder.
One has to wonder why the Spectrum blog is so incessantly preoccupied with homosexuality and its issues. Almost like a pathology. Its practice is a sin and that's clear.
Who says one sin is worse than another?? Homosexuality is deviant sexual sin, but no-one can look down their nose at others like a Pharisee. But this law versus faith- I don't get what you are about Herold? Faith does not nullify the importance of law - we all need to know what composes our sinful behaviors and the law helps us with that, and doesn't diminish the importance of faith.
"Homosexuality is deviant sexual sin"
Please define deviant.
Deviant sin is anything that is not considered normal.
Please define normal.
What is normal to you Lance may not be normal to others.
Adventist people think the mission position for sex is normal.
I think anything out side this is deviant and is a sin in the eyes of God.
I think Americans have a past time on this subject and that is deviant sin.
Do you get my point.
Thank you Herold for mudding the waters a little further.
It is so much clearer now heterosexuality is a sin and is deviant in the eyes of God.
No marriages in Heaven or deviant sex acts.
It will be so nice to be able to Kiss your brother and not be called a deviant.
Sex will be done away with.
Thanks Lance.
Normal is a statistical term. It defines the central tendency and as many standard deviations the researcher wishs to include. Usually only one standard deviation. In sexual issues, there are only three clear categories so the tools might well differ. None the less, according to available data, homosexual behavior in humans is about 8-10 percent. It seem congenital rather than acquired although recruitment is not unknown. Personally, I believe it to be unnatural and disgusting. I have dealt with enough HIV positives to know the tragic isolated mental state of such victims. I also know that many vent their frustration on the community at large.
I know of one HIV positive man who on release from the hospital declared. "I"m going out there and infect as many @#$%^&* as I can before I die." Tom
Undertandable, but certainly not Christian. Tom
Tom,
are you afraid to say you don't have normal sex.
Are you a deviant in your sexual habits.
It is a sin you know.
Stop going over the same tracks and talking about one kind of person.
If you do have sex and waste your seed may God curse you.
Normal IS a statistical term. There are also non statistical definitions of normal. Ones that are not open to interpretation. One can look at design and function to determine normal.
The designer of the human body designed a female body to do certain things with certain specific parts with certain protections such as lubracative ability.
Other parts do not have these abilities and are clearly designed as waste disposal conduits.
These are not subjective systems. If it was boats we were talking about and the purpose of a boat is to displace water so it could support weight and facilitate transit, one could not say, No a boat is supposed to have a 100 foot hole in the bottom of it, as if the function was up to each person to define.
A boat with an intentional 100 foot hole in the bottom isnt a boat. Its a man made reef.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDdUpxqTzk&feature=related
It is true read the Bible it defiantly says is is only for procreation.
You forgot to mention that there is another 10 to 20% who dont fit into the normans of your world Tom.
So do you think then the vagina is for your penis.
I don't think so, it is all for waste products of the body.
The anus is also lubed for you to pass waste out of.
Read up you ignoramus.
God never intended for Eve to be man handled. God never intended Eve at all, read the story.
Why do we always go straight to sex when talking about homosexuality. We don't assume that someone is sexually active when they are hetrosexual. We don't assume a hetrosexual couple are engaged in"deviant" sexual behaivor when they are dating. Why do we have to make homosexuality about sex? I think this reveals more about our prejudice and hidden fears than about our views of sin and God.
In the context of christianity, our only question when dealing with the homosexual community is how to love them into a life long friendship with Jesus. I'll let God deal with their "deviant" behavior
ALSO.... someone said it was "disgusting!" I have a real problem with that. I don't find the "idea" of homosexuality disgusting. I can't believe God does either. Especially if we allow that two people can fall deeply in love (a gift from God by the way) and live in an exclusive, loving, committed relationship.
What is disgusting about that? Are there sexual acts that are disgusting... sure, but as someone has already said, those are often culturally defined. Not to beat a dead horse, but lets move the conversation from sex and help move the church and the culture to a place that builds up and supports wholesome, loving, life giving relationships.. in whatever form they may take.
Jeff,
If you follow the threads on this site you will soon find that this keeps us under the thumb by those who think they are better.
Mankind has always put his fellow man down.
That was very obvious at the conference at Andrews.
Cultures have more or less, but in today's world it is more prevalent. The US is a culture that puts its fellow man down.
It is not about building up but tearing down and because it has wide tentacle's it spreads.
The Bible says Lamb like in its doings.
Lance:
Reading the Bible necesitates making choices. To which author are we going to give priority? The notion that the Bible speaks with one voice is patently not true. I, therefore, make my choice. I consider Paul my guide. He makes clear, I think, that the Law (the Pentateuch) is indispensable. Without it we would have no way of making sense of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But the death and the resurrection of Jesus have brought about the end of the world of Adam and have established the world of the Risen Christ. In the world of the Risen Christ, The Law has lost its power to condemn. Living "in Christ", sin is acting outside of
faith.
In other words, faith establishes The Law by using it to understand Christ. Christ is the end of The Law because, once the story reached its intended goal, its function as agent of condemnation has been terminated. In the world of the Second Adam life is empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit, and sin is falling from faith.
At least, that is what I get from Paul
Noel
Perhaps you shouldnt be the one talking about puting other people down. FYI. Name calling is the result of a weak arguement and not very "lamb like" as you say.
Michael,
It does have is tentacle's!!
We just had a poster call Tom an ignoramus. Aside from revealing a lack of ability on the part of the writer to respond in a healthy and intelligent fashion to an opposing view, does this not also constitute a personal attack?
I thought there is no room on this site for such bile.
Thanks...
Frank
Thank you Frank, you can call me names but I cant call you names.
One sided story hey.
What bile are you referring to.
One that does not agree with your views.
Herold Weiss wrote, "The Bible does not tell me, however, what to do with these four definitions."
I reply with Acts 2:38: "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (NIV)
It must be sin. For that is what you call it.
But it would seem to the casual observer at least, you simply protesteth too much.
As such, you have told us that you are not married. Never have married. You don't like woman. You avoid them. Hate it when they talk in church. Hate their hair. And the horrors of actually touching one. But if you are so horny , and you simply can't help it . . . then marry one . . . but so much better if you stayed single like me.
But you also tell us that you are doing something . . . practicing something . . . you hate. What that something is, you are coy . . . give hints . . . but never say. To horrible to say. But it is a thorn. It is in your flesh. It is a messenger from Satan to buffet you . . . to keep you from exalting yourself.
You don't understand what or why you do it. You don't do what you would like to do, but do the very thing you hate. It is that Law thing. Confessing is good. So now, it is no longer you that is doing it, but the sin which dwells within you. You say, again, you practice the very evil that you do not wish to do.
You joyfully concur with the law of God in your inner man, but you see a different law in the members of your body. . . waging war against the law of your mind, making you a prisoner of the law of sin which is in your members.
You cry out "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"
And in another time. Another era. Your cry is heard again.
It is heard in a context that only a few can understand. And even then, with a sense of angst.
The hammer of that Law. That same Law that condemned you to certain death. The very commandment that promised life to you proved to be the death of you as well. At least you said that. You said the devil made you do it. Those fears . . . those fears within your flesh . . . your members . . . your bodily appendages . . . and which of your appendages can contain sin? An appendage . . . under the influence of a gland that does not always obey the mind of the person . . .
You confess to us you have a hidden aspect to your life. You live in shame. You call yourself an imposter. One who yearns to be true. Through dying yearns to be alive.
But you are also a zealot. You proudly boasted of your allegiance and adherence to the Law. Enough so to try to violently destroy a threatening religion. Destroy something that threatened you . . . to your very core.
For that very damnation of a Law that condemns you to death . . . is the very crutch you use to absolve yourself. Take that law away . . . and you fear of your shame. And those Christians . . . those yammerers of grace . . . were a threat you could not bear.
Things changed.
No. You didn't get caught in the men's room at the Minneapolis airport.
But your testimony is like those who are. Repressed homosexuals. Railing against the evils, the despicability, the disgust of it.
The duplicitous life of deceit and hypocrisy.
And there are some of us, Teh Gayz that is, that would call you a sommamabeech of a bastard. And some of us, Teh Gayz that is, that would not.
But as wretched as you say you are . . . you too were given a gift.
And that gift inspired you to say things about love. That love is patient. That love is kind. That love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. That love does not insist on its own way. That love is not irritable or resentful. That love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. That love bears all things. Believes all things. Hopes all things. Endures all things. That love never ends. And when it comes to faith and hope and love, the greatest of these is love.
Paul. Welcome.
To come out of the closet is to be free. A God-willed freedom from the bondage of hell.
And as a child of God . . . made in the way you are . . . you too are loved.
Kenneth James
Kenneth,
Thanks for your story of Paul.
The problem is will they believe it, the way it truly is.
They see Paul in a different light.
They have dogma to prove it.
Yes. The traditional dogma is that the thorn in the flesh is (a) epilepsy, (b) speech impediment, or (c) blindness (from too much masturbation?).
However, Paul identifies the thorn as a sin that is connected with the flesh and that he is involved with on a practicing basis.
And the potential sins:
The envelope please...
fornication - [Paul avoids women]
idolatry - [not a sin of the flesh]
adultery - [Paul avoids women]
theft - [not a sin of the flesh]
coveting - [not a sin of the flesh]
drinking - [a sin of the flesh, but does not fit the description he provides]
reviling - [not a sin of the flesh]
swindling - [not a sin of the flesh]
effeminacy - [perhaps a sin of the flesh, but Paul was chosen by the Pharisees to go on a mission to destroy nascent Christianity . . . not a task one would think of being assigned to effeminate man.]
epilepsy - [not a sin of the flesh, unless it was misdiagnosed as demon possession.]
speech impediment - [not a sin, but perhaps inappropriate utterances as with Tourette's Syndrome]
Kenneth James
Masturbation?
Oh know we don't talk about that do we.
That is a devaint life style and is a sin.
Call it by its real name, "Sin".
The Bible condemns it and the seed should not be wasted.
God struck a person to death over that. "Masturbation".
Heterosexuals generate homosexuals all around the world. With 8-10% making up the homosexual population, could God have decided in some form to control birth when he made that small number homosexual? With 90% still producing babies, why worry about the other 10%? There are cultures where anal sex among hetero couples to avoid babies is the norm.
Will the church worry at all how people (married couples) are having sex in their own time? Of corse not. What is all the preocuapation with homosexual sex? It won't make gay people heterosexual no matter what since it's not a choice, and at the same time will confuse young gay individuals, to say the least. We are in the 21st century, and you are slow in understanding, if after so many personal experiences have been told here and elsewhere, and you still think anyone could chose to be gay
Ezequiel,
Yes they do think we chose it and have said so on other places on this site.
Anal sex is practiced in all cultures.
Adventist people I would dare say practice it more.
The Catholics are not shameful about it, because they don't believe in Condoms. They practice it for birth control.
Call it be its rightful name "sin"
The jives are all over this web site if you care to look around.
"This site is a place for thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective; rants and tirades don't further this mission and are not appropriate."
That means we can bag the Gays on here, does it?.
Homosexuality comes up on every talk even when the talk is not about Homosexuality.
"Hate" is a four letter word. It sure is used on this site a lot.
Are we fair game that we are such scapegoats for your falls.
You know, this has become a VERY inappropriate discussion! Bad behavior is bad behavior, no matter which side of the discussion you support.
When ANYONE lowers themselves to the level of another who is being inappropriate they lose credibility. We cannot learn or make any progress on this subject through anger and personal attacks and name calling.
Being heterosexual does not mean that you are automatically behaving appropriately. AND, being homosexual does not mean that you are automatically behaving inappropriately! There are people in each group that are moral and Christlike and there are people in each group who are immoral and filled with evil.
We will NEVER resolve our differences through hate and anger....only through listening to each other and exhibiting patience and understanding.
And, yes, I am a Seventh-day Adventist AND I am a lesbian. Let's truly study the subject and not waste words and energy on bad behavior.
male homosexuality was a "sin" to Moses belief in God because it was a waste of "seed"....it would not produce soldiers to attack the neighbors, and kill all the women who had had sex, and save the virgins (to use) to create more soldiers.
look at the complete misunderstanding displayed in the Old Test about genetics and reproduction.
even EGW railed about the loss of "life force" by wasting seed. God even killed Onan for the same "issue"...tho the inheritance laws may have had something to do with it too.
the ancients in their scientific ignorance did not understand genetics...they thought a man's "seed" contained the seed of people, and did not understand any part of a woman's genetics in reproduction, except as providing a warm oven.
This ignorance is at the basis for the ancient's and therefore the Bibles mistreatment of women, and todays continuing tho diminishing double standard.
Then inheritance laws came along, and any patriarch worth his flocks didn't want his goats to go to a woman's offspring who had had sex with another guy, for fear that it would not be his "seed" who inherited his stuff....thus the importance of a woman being a virgin at marriage.
thus the story of Lots incestuous romp in the cave with his daughters can be understand as an Israelite swipe at the moral turpitude of the Moabites, who were geographically the first tribe needing divinely commanded ethnic cleansing as the Israelites finally ended their long "40" yr million march for which there is no evidence.
But Moses explanation that God had commanded the killing of all the neighbors was justified by the Moabites being SOB's who, under Hebrew law, could not inherit the land they were squatting on... combine that motivation to dislodge squatters with the promise that the soldiers could keep all the stuff they "liberated, and any good looking virgins they wanted, and you have a great war propaganda machine at work.
Jacob, with God's help, is said to have increased the number of genetically spotted "blem" goats, which he got to keep, by having the goats do it while staring at striped sticks.
So God knowingly or otherwise helped Jacob cheat his uncle Laban by overcoming the laws of genetics!!! if this were still the genetic law today, if you want your daughter to be born a porn star, you should watch the good stuff while planting your seed in your partner....or if you wanted your son to be a sports hero, you should be watching old (before Lost in Vegas) OJ Simpson movies while planting your "seed" in your partner...
and that partner should be a woman, because "seed" just doesnt grow well in a man.....
and any woman would do....even slaves,and prisoners...based on Gods command to Moses in Numb 31 to kill all the little boys, all the men, and kill any women who had had sex, because, presumably, the Hebrews didn't want to raise another tribes kids....however, God never explained to them that "saving" the captured virgins to "use" would dilute their own tribes genetic uniqueness....
meaning god Himself didn't know this, didn't care, or deliberately withheld this knowledge from His favorite tribe of goat herders, OR, the writers of this story were scientifically IGNORANT and NOT divinely inspired. Thus the whole Muddle East grew into practically one color and related ethnic group.
The ancients misunderstanding of genetics is at the basis of this argument. You need more soldiers to attack the enemy and take their land while using the Nuremburg Excuse (Gott mit Uns)??? then your soldiers should be hetero... possibly also due to the testosterone issue as explained by anthropologist Helen Fischer in her original work....
"the Sex Contract"
*********************************
proto human-chimps living in trees in Africa which was drifting north into a dry belt due to plate tectonics millions of years ago, counted dwindling bananas in their decreasing forest, and increasing grasslands. And since they, and later goat herders, could only count on fingers and toes, "40" was the maximum number. Some testy-and-hunger motivated male tried to crawl on all fours across the grasslands to the next forest to explore for new bananas but was eaten by the sabertooth tigers.
It took a while for the next generations of proto=humans to realize they could see over the grass if they walked on hind legs, and the biggest, strongest, most adventurous explorer males and Harley females did just that... survived the predators, became better fed by predation themselves, and raised new "species" walking on hind legs in distant, more productive forests, leaving behind the timid males to be rejected by the left behind females pining after the bigger, adventuresome males who had left....
in the new forests, among the adventurous proto-people, the female period of "estrus" which had formerly been the gate keeper to sexuality, was given up by females in exchange for food, security, a drivers license and the vote. While in a dying breed left behind in dwindling banana forests, the timid males left behind and rejected by the females pining for their big, strong males, had nothing left to do but take up knitting and wall papering and interplay...leaving behind a scant 5% or so of human genes.
while the aggressive males and females who had explored new territory, signed a "sex contract".... the females said...I'll go with you, back of your Harley or I'll even learn to drive, maybe even work, and you can forget the estrus period and have your way with me anytime, but if you make me preggers, you gotta promise we're a monogamous family, and build me a house".
so according to Helen Fisher, a FEMALE antropologist (so don't blame me!!) our species evolo...ah, past history created the heteros who reproduced after their kind, who became great warriors and patriarchs, looking to plant their seed in a way that produced more warriors, while the ho..ah, non heteros became artists. and PC says there's nothing wrong with that...tho Darwin might disagree.
Later, survival of the fittest created more right handers among the heteros, who constantly fought with their right hands, protecting their hearts with their left. Fighting with a left hand, leaves the heart exposed, and those Neanderthals who did so, didn't survive as often to pass on their left handed genes. While a greater percent of non heteros are said to be left handed, and artistic, possibly because their distant ancestors often chose not to fight but instead concentrated on the arts, and passed on those genetic factors.
and right handedness taught theBrits to walk or ride their steeds of war on the left side of the trail, in order to fight with their right hands. And neanderthals who attacked a neighboring village for their wife, had a group of buddies to help, (groomsmen), and walked down the aisle on the right side, in order to defend their actions with their right hands, meaning their buttons needed to open the way the do in order to reach into ones left side to grab ones sword....while Womens buttons work the other way, since they were supposed to be attended to by courtesans and keepers dressing them from the front. When approaching a knight on horseback, obviously on the left side of the trail, in order to show the oncoming knight that your intentions are peaceful, you would reach up and raise your top head piece, and he would do the same, creating the military "salute", which may come from the latin word for "health"....
Again, don't blame me!!! blame Helen and Charles and their explanations of how it all happened. Darwin points out that homosexuality is "nonproductive, literally", while Helen Fisher says it happened, due to rejection by the left behind females, and the ancients knew even less about it all, only that it was a waste of good "seed"...and since the Israelites needed a continuing supply of cannon fodder, they claimed that their God called it a "sin".
Interestingly, there is far less opposition to female homosexuality among the ancients and in the Bible....
possibly because it does not involve a "waste of seed", and is not perceived as "dirty".
Either way, the "sin" of sodomy in Sodom seems less the physical way of doing "it", than the notion that a father would give his virgin daughters over to rape and abuse....
but again, that story may have been concocted by the israelites as part of their war propaganda against the descendants of that alleged, incestuous, drunken, double-tryst in the cave.
Plenty more reasons for women and homosexuals to distrust/dislike many of the tales in the Bible literally!!!
And plenty of reasons to see why it was men who wrote it.
wow really? eve was not supposed to have been created?? so WHO was?
steve or tom perhaps??? who has the secret connection with God to have this information? i can't seem to find it in the Bible. but i don't need the Bible--of course that makes sense, since two adams can create a human being..... yes, that would've worked perfectly.
hmmm maybe that was just another mistake some spectrum forum members seem to think God has made.... in which case, i wonder, again, if anyone believes our God makes mistakes, why on earth would you bother worshipping Him.....?
and wow, noel, i hope you are a biology teacher to be stating that the vagina is for waste only. michael is speaking simple facts; you are speaking opinion... and because of your tight-lipped, very angry posts i suppose you feel so very hated and attacked.
here--if you're gay, i don't hate you. i truly don't. i don't even know you, aside from your angry posts. there, do you feel better? i cannot agree with it as a practice that God intended or commends, because of basic biology regarding procreation (that 10% to rein in the vast amount of off-spring theory doesn't quite fly with me since God had said to go and multiply) and because the most basic Bible translations state that homosexuality is a sin--but i can still love you as a human being.
unless of course you'd rather spew rage and hate towards every who doesn't agree with you-- then i'll just take care to make sure we never meet.
to add to what michael was saying, FACT: we all know that the vagina is connected to the uterus. every month (in non-menopausal, of-age women) the uterus gets ready for a child. when no seed has met an egg, the child-ready environment is then disposed of. that's it. would that be the "waste" that you're speaking of?
the uterus then gets ready to continue the cycle all over again.
the anus (eventually leading up to the bowels) and bowels, on the other hand, cannot and will not nurture any life. they are 1) for processing food and withdrawing nutrients, and 2) a chute through which our body's waste is dumped. continuously.
there is no flowering of life there. no environment prepared so that a human being can thrive. only stench, defecation, and yes, toxins waiting to be released.
must i be so graphic? yes, apparently, since around here, vaginas are apparently thought of as waste bin chutes--as the anus truly is.
kb,
you, like many others on this sitelike to stir up people and think you are good at it.
you like others on this site like to have horizontal violence
May God love you.
Herold - I really appreciated your article...lots to think about and you articulated your theses clearly enough for a non-theologian like myself to understand.
Also, there are some posters here who need to tone down the name-calling. Please try to remember to be kind to one another. We are all children of God and need to treat each other accordingly, no matter how much we disagree.
We are starting to wonder Noel if you are healthy mentally. You speak pure nonsense as if it was truth and will not concede even the most rudimentary obvious facts.
If we say they sky is blue will you say its red? Will you cut off your nose to spite your face?
i have not posted short, angry comments repeatedly, nor gotten nasty and name-called.
this was your M.O., noel, and i'm surprised you weren't censored. i was not trying to stir anyone up, only responding to you, who were doing much of the stirring, because you were calling opinion fact.
i am truly aghast that you have likened my post to (horizontal?) violence and i have nothing furthermore to say to you since you cannot debate logically with facts, nor do so in a civil manner. and yes, God does love me. He loves you too.
Thank you Frank, you can call me names but I cant call you names.
********************************************************************************************
Noel...
I never once called you a name. I simply referred to the quality of what you did, and what that reveals to me about your ability to discuss this issue rationally or courteously. I did not place a pejorative label like ignoramus on your person as you did to Tom. For me, that is crossing the line into bile.
Nor does what I said have anything to do with my views on this topic, as you stated. In fact, I've never even stated my views on this as well as many other issues on this website. It would help if you wouldn't put words or thoughts in my mouth that aren't there.
The main issue for me in this case has only to do with you calling someone a demeaning name. When that is resorted to, I feel that trumps any view on any topic. From now on, I would appreciate it if you would please try reading what I wrote, rather than reading into my words what you assume I think.
Thanks...
Frank
It was not Tom!!
It was Michael I was referring to.
The one thing that makes me so sad is that you all can give it, but when it is given back you are not able to appreciate it.
Let me tell you just how you have upset me.
I am a sinner, deviant, discussing, life style chooser and then you quote the Bible like you are all Saints.
You say you do not hate my kind but then you go about abusing us by words.
You use the Bible like a weapon, like it has been done for many a year.
"this issue rationally or courteously"
Frank have you taken a look at the Andrews conference.
Explain to me how rational or courteously that was!!
The problem is Gay people bar a few just let you all go off.
You (meaning all) discust for our so called life style is because you all hate which is a sin. Call it by its real name "sin". The Bible says so!!
I put you all in the same boat as you do me and my fellow Gay people.
Sound fair to you. Aren't you all tared to the one brush?
Sorry Frank7 if you support us.
I do use my real name and not a pseudo as I have nothing to hide.
"wow, noel, i hope you are a biology teacher"
I see the human body open every day at work.
I do know what organs are for and what function they perform
I also know what Heterosexuality and Homosexuality does to the human body.
It was never meant to be like it is now. Sin entered the world as we know it.
God never intended women to have child birth like it is now.
I am not God and I do not know why things are.
Faith and Hope is all we have and if you take that away then you have commited the most sin.
The church does that every day.
...<"God never intended women to have child birth like it is now">...
but isn't that what God did? on purpose? as part punishment for Eve's naive deception by the sneakiest of all creatures, the talking snake?
Lets review the story in modern English.....
starting with "Once upon a time....
....(CEV) Genesis 3:1 The snake was sneakier than any of the other wild animals that the LORD God had made. One day it came to the woman and asked, "Did God tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?" 2 The woman answered, "God said we could eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 3 except the one in the middle. He told us not to eat fruit from that tree or even to touch it. If we do, we will die." 4 "No, you won't!" the snake replied. 5 "God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does."
interrupt quote for this question:
Didn't God say that they would die..."on the day you eat fruit from that tree?" but the talking snake said they would not die that day?
and who was right? who told the truth, and who did not?
resume quote:
6 The woman stared at the fruit. It looked beautiful and tasty. She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit. Her husband was there with her, so she gave some to him, and he ate it too. 7 Right away they saw what they had done, and they realized they were naked. Then they sewed fig leaves together to make something to cover themselves. 8 Late in the afternoon a breeze began to blow, and the man and woman heard the LORD God walking in the garden. They were frightened and hid behind some trees. 9 The LORD called out to the man and asked, "Where are you?"
interrupt quote for a major question:
Why did God have to ask where A&E were if , as claimed, He is both omnipresent and omniscient? Shouldn't God have known all along where they were?....and doesn't this fleshing out of the story make it sound like a human tale told by somebody with imagination? maybe told to kids around the campfire to educate them in the claimed history and importance of their tribe???? with parts of the story possibly borrowed from other civilizations histories?
resume quote:
10 The man answered, "I was naked, and when I heard you walking through the garden, I was frightened and hid!" 11 "How did you know you were naked?" God asked. "Did you eat any fruit from that tree in the middle of the garden?"
interrupt quote to again ask,
if God is omni everything, why did He have to ask? maybe, again, this further indicates that this is a campfire story.
resume quote:
12 "It was the woman you put here with me," the man said. "She gave me some of the fruit, and I ate it." 13 The LORD God then asked the woman, "What have you done?" "The snake tricked me," she answered. "And I ate some of that fruit." 14 So the LORD God said to the snake: "Because of what you have done, you will be the only animal to suffer this curse -- For as long as you live, you will crawl on your stomach and eat dirt. 15 You and this woman will hate each other; your descendants and hers will always be enemies. One of hers will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel."
and here is where the Lord deliberately curses the innocent ground, and makes child birth painful, as punishment? contrary to the opening claim above:
resume quote:
16 Then the LORD said to the woman, "You will suffer terribly when you give birth. But you will still desire your husband, and he will rule over you."
end quote
last question: is the Lords curse upon women the reason childbirth is painful? or is it that over many generations of better nutrition, babies heads grew faster than womens pelvis? an supernatural curse? or a natural process? and does the "HE WILL RULE OVER YOU part not just confirm the probability that it was men who wrote these stories...not God or women????
John, if you take the Bible so literal.
I was not just talking about the pain of child birth.
A lot women of today opt out of that and have a cut.
For some women just the thought of a man (ruling) over them is painful.
Wasn't Eve suppose to be a help mate, as Eve was taken out of Adam?
Yes I do believe the Bible was written by men for men of that time.
Yes God inspired it, but man wrote it.
Just like I do believe that God inspired the old composes of classical music.
I am not God, but people put themselves up as God.
Isn't that in Genesis as a lesson?
What is natural for you, may not be natural for others.
But man has to be God. He knows what is natural.
Noel et al
"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Cor. 11:9
There is no Scrptural reference that man was created for the man!
The Scripture above is Paul, Not Ellen White, not some ignoramus from the Bible belt.
Believe as you wish, behave has you wish, write as you wish; but the fact remains that Reform Christian Theology is based upon Paul and the apostles. Not Handel or Chopin et al. To reject them is to reject Christian beliefs and practice. One can argue normal, natural till the cows come home. The issue is clear that man to man or woman to woman sexually is not God intended. That is clear. Sin is for God to call.
However, membership in a religious organization is based upon its Fundamental Beliefs and practices. These, of course, are suject to change. If ya'll want to make change, Spectrum is a very poor place to start, just ask Cliff. Tom
I am suffocated and lost when I have not the bright feeling of progression.
Margraet Fuller
Yes Tom, the Bible was written by man for man- kind. God inspired.
Yes sin is for God to call.
I am please you see it that way Tom.
Who is interested in change here on Spectrum.
It was set up by people who were against the main church body.
So called free thinkers.
The Protestant groups brought Roman Catholicism with them.
Get the point.
Like Des FORD and his followers.
Then someone said to me the church has told them (taught) about the evils of Des Ford. A former Pastor. How sad.
If you do not progress you die.
No one will rap you up in cotton wool and carrie you for long.
To Tom, et al.
It started with "It's a sin." And four concepts of sin. And the implication that homosexuality is sin.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church defines homosexuality as sin.
Those Sodomites. We Sodomites. Are sinners. We practice sin. We are sin. Our very personhood and being is sin. Such as it would seem.
I submit to you, and to so many who have made comments in this thread, there are more than "Sodomites" who are "Sodomites" . . . the real Sodomites. And if you don't recognize yourselves, educated yourselves as to what the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah entailed.
But Tom, you have revealed so many times in so many threads, your understanding of sin and salvation. And well and good. And you have found your comfort zone. And your faith sustains you. Thanksgiving and praise be. That sin you are saved from, that sin inherent because you are a child of Adam, and tainted by that original sin of Eve, that necessity for a forensic redemption, and your belief that you are truly ransomed. That paradigm of sin and salvation is applicable to you and to all of humankind . . . at least so believed, by so many in Christendom.
But that concept of sin is inherently based on the notion that it is one's belief and acceptance in salvation, salvation from one's deeds in iniquity. And even we gays, at least the ones who are still struggling mightily to find their place of equality within Christendom and the Seventh-day Adventist church, can and do claim that salvation.
But Tom, there is a sin that apparently you, and most people, were never shackled with. For those, and those like you, the sins of concern are the sins of performance or lack thereof. Of dis-loyalty to God. Sins that are confessable. Forgivable. But for homosexuals, the sin is simply BEING the very person we are. Our very existence is sin. It is THE sin. A sin against nature. A sin that even God can't forgive. We are truly the "other." The abomination.
A sanctuary is supposedly a place of refuge, of safety, of hospitality.
There are gay individuals who were birthed into the Seventh-day Adventist church. Reared in SDA homes. Educated in SDA schools. In a "sanctuary" of sorts.
There are gay individuals who work in SDA institutions. Participate in SDA churches. Married to fulfill family and church expectations. But to do so is to live the constant lie. The living hell of living a lie. Sin on sin.
There are gay individuals who struggle so desperately to belong to the faith of their heritage. Long for acceptance. For basic human equality. To live a life of love and fulfillment with the one they love.
And the best the Seventh-day Adventist church will extend . . . that insidiously evil platitude . . . "we love the sinner but we hate the sin."
To all of you who relish in your sanctimonious practice of sodomy . . . the despicability of hating "the other, " that very BEING of sin, within your gates, while rationalizing the charity of your self-serving "love" towards the "them," there can be, there is forgiveness.
The question can be asked, why on earth would a gay person want to associate with the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
For some, it is the only life we know. For some, it is a battered spouse syndrome. For others, it is the blessed hope that the church will somehow, someday, finds its senses. For yet others, it is the fear of leaving. The dreadful fear of the unknown. That engrained SDA theology of truly being lost. And for still others, the SDA church is simply a train-wreck-in-progress to watch.
"It's a sin." Your damn right it is a sin.
Sodomy, that truly despicable kind, is a sin.
Kenneth James
Kenneth,
Thanks for putting it in words, what I and so many feel.
I feel this is a place to start change, from the grass roots up.
Kenneth
So is "damn"
It is God not man that defined sin. Is all I said. I think
Romans 1, and the story of Sodom are enough to get the sense of God's view. I don't think my comments changed that. My point was don't argue with man about sin. Your argument is with God.
If you want to argue with the Church about membership why is a God define sinful behavior cause for denial of membership go right ahead. However, Spectrum is a very ineffective place to do so. If you want to share your views with a liberal self assurred group of apologists then Spectrum is a good place to start.
This topic began months ago. In those early days, I gave a candid view of the disgust of three encounters with "Seventh-day Adventists homosexuals" who attempted to recruit me into their camp.
I hold no brief for their behavior. I do believe in civility and I have dealt with them as neighbors and as employees under my administration in a civil and equitable fashion. The Minister of Music of my church was a closet homosexual, outed only because he died from aids related causes. The dean of a major school under my adminisration was an active lesbian as were three or four of her facuty. Their professional work was satisfactory to excellent. My next door neighbors were a lesbian couple. As they became ill unto death, I mowed their lawn, blew leaves off their deck and drive, repaired their down stairs toilet and visited with them socially. Their relationship to each other was their business. They relationship to God was also their choice. To the extend that I could help them in their declining years, as a Christian neighbor I did all that I could at age 75.
It seems to me that the issue is that homosexuals and lesbians deny a God difined sin--a behavior they feel prefectly free to continue to engage in as members of a Church body. Of course, all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Yet a Christian has confessed his/her sin and abandoned that practice. At times they may and do "fall" or fail, so the process of confession /fogiveness continues until the Parusia.
It is the denial of sin and the persistence of behavior that is the barrier to membership as I understand the current impass. This thread will not change that. Or to damn bloggers or call them ignoramuses is no advancement of the argument. Tom
Ecclesiastes 11:5 (NIV)
“As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God the Maker of all things.”
Paul told us over and over again that trying to live our lives by a long list of do’s and don’ts was a lost cause.
Why? Because no one is good enough to follow such a list day in and day out! Furthermore, Paul said such attempts would only bring heartache and failure for no one except Jesus Christ Himself is capable of living a perfect life (Romans 3:10-23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5)!
Worse yet, if we attempt to earn our righteousness through ‘good deeds,’ we are in fact rejecting the very work that Christ did for us on the cross (Galatians 2:19-3:21, 5:1-6)!
Therefore sin is simply this: if I do not love God and put Him first in my life, this is a sin. If I mistreat others or myself spiritually, emotionally or physically, it is a sin. Love is the basis for all of God’s laws, old and new. Sin is the absence or distortion of this love.
So I give you a new law love your neighbour as you love yourself. Simple isn't it!
But can we do that? can we love our Gay people as we love ourselves. The church fails on that account.
Noel
Isn't it wonderful that not man but God who will have the last word. I am will to wait. Tom
Kenneth
I would disagree that Adventism feels that a homosexual is a sinner or sin personified just because he might be SSA.
Read the outpooring of support for Wayne Blakely and anyone else who says this is me. I have temptations, no matter what they might be, but I'm not going to act on them.
Is it any wonder that anyone who thinks just being attracted to a same sex person is the personification of one type of sin, will truly not understand how others can seperate the sin from the sinner and grasp the meaning behind phrases such as Love the sinner hate the sin?
I must confess that I wrote this columnn with the intention of starting a conversation about the nature of the Bible and how what we find in it complicates our use of it (yes, we use it!) Instead, it seems that I sparked quite a bit of frustrations, resentments and dogmatics. As it turned out, I provided another illustration of the old saying about paving the road with good intentions.
On the other hand, the cause of these reactions is not going to go away soon, and maybe, even if our generation cannot talk about it without raising one's voice and failing to communicate, the next generation, who is listening and watching, will not repeat our mistakes.
Herold,
You are right, No it won't go away.
We have been treated like second class people since the year dot. Ruled over by many people and put to death.
The church needs to deal with it and not put a hate Statement up and call it Love.
But it has never addressed anything that is controversial since EGW died.
One exception was Des Ford. Others were storms in a tea cup.
By church I mean people, because without people the Adventist church would cease.
The reason the church feels it can not do this, is because it has become a third word church. Money is at the bottom of it.
Africa is watching and has threatened to cut off ties with the US, if it takes us on.
Tom, you are so right, God does have the last say in the end.
It is written that he says enough is enough we need to call it now.
Save us dear Lord from ourselves, is my prayer.
Noel
Noel,
From this topic and others that have dealt with the subject of homosexuality on the Spectrum blog I have these questions for you.
There are 2 distinct beliefs in the church regarding homosexuality. One says that homosexuality is a sin and the other side says that the church should accept it as a normal variation of human sexuality.
Why is it that when you state your opinion that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality, it is just you expressing right to free speech and your opinion and interpretation of the Bible?
Why is it OK for you to have free speech and not OK for the opposite opinion to have the same freedom?
If someone disagrees with you, why is it called hate? These people do not hate you. They disagree with you.
These people are honest, church-going people who read the Bible and are convicted that homosexuality is a sin.
Noel and Kenneth,
I hear you say that there are just two choices. One is for the homosexual SDA to stay in the church and continue to experience homosexual behavior, and feelings while getting judgement from the church, or the second option is for the church to change and accept homosexuals and homosexual behavior.
There is a third choice. It is called renewal. It is very Biblical. God calls us to become new creations. That applies to ALL sin, including homosexuality.
A homosexual can admit that homosexuality is not God's choice for him, and walk away from it. There are plenty of men who have. They are not going around suppressing who they are, they are transforming themselves into the God given OSA (opposite sex attracted) men that God intended for them to be. This is the correct perspective that the church should have.
Rather than "love the sinner, hate the sin", it should be "love the sinner, transform the person." That is what the Bible and gospel is all about, deliverance from sin and a new life.
Newman, you question assumes a set of assumptions. I jettisoned, mercifully, those assumptions some time ago.
I wish you well. I will be just fine, thank you very much.
Kenneth James
New man,
I have said before I am not going around telling people you are a sinner, but on the other hand you are. You may not say that, but I think you have before.
Others are saying I am a sinner because I am a homosexual. Not just on behaviour but just because I say I am a Gay person.
I am loved by Jesus just the way I am thank you.
I do not subscribe to dogma, either church dogma or outside dogma.
So for you to avoid that you say you have changed?
As for free speech I think the other side has had a fair go over the years.
God bless you and as I have said before good luck.
Kinship will be around to support you, if you fall off the rails.
My question to you is this.
What dreams do you have at night? Also If you do not have dreams then you have block out those dreams by a change program. Drugs or other methods.
A nothing person. Void of all feeling. Blocked out by?
Yes we can all go through the motions.
Please tell me what happens when you come off that high?
New man
The assumption is that it is a sin. You have been preconditioned to that. Dogma.
God Bless you.
The church needs to deal with it and not put a hate Statement up and call it Love.
"Given these circumstances, we should not be surprised when we discover among us those who say homosexuality is a sin and those who deny it."
Herold, I totally agree, and thank you for an excellent explanation for why this is so.
I've avoided this thread so far, as I posted extensively on several related threads a few weeks ago and got kind of worn out with the discussion. For those of you who saw my posts on those threads, you'll be aware that I don't believe homosexual practice is inherently sinful, and that I'm passionately opposed to the church's stance on same-sex marriage.
For the record, I'm a happily married heterosexual male in my mid-forties. I live in Australia and regularly attend my local SDA church congregation. I'm an IT Consultant by profession (not a theologian :-) My interest in this subject is mainly because I know a few wonderful Christians who happen to be gay, and who have experienced rejection by the church.
Reading this thread, I've been pained at the amount of venom apparent on both sides of the discussion. Though I must admit I had a bit of a laugh seeing Tom and Michael on the same side of the debate, given other recent threads on the creation issue :-)
Many of us have had personal experiences which can tend to bias us one way or the other, but ultimately our view comes down to how we read scripture, and how we understand sin.
When we read the Bible with a view to understanding principles, rather than just specific "do's" and "don'ts", I believe sin can be defined as behaviour that is harmful, selfish or exploitative. Pretty much everything the Bible condemns falls into one or more of these categories (including most of the specific references to homosexual behaviour).
But a loving committed same sex relationship is not harmful, selfish or exploitative. I just can't see how God would condemn anyone for that, whether or not it was part of His original plan for mankind, prior to sin entering the world.
For those of you who passionately disagree with me, I simply appeal for you to let God be the judge.
You would also know Robert how hard it is to run a group in Australia.
Because we are interbred and because everyone knows each other. Very sad when the Family you love turns on you.
The church does not practice what it preaches.
You would also know about the article that Nathan
Brown put into the Record. "Beyond Assumptions"
The hate that came from that article would make your hair curl. It had to be put on the back burner on the Record website. It is now on the Adventist Today site.
That article was only the third article in the Record that I know of about us.
Yes it published the Law suit the church was doing in the States about Kinship. But it never published the Fact the church lost.
I am pleased you meet us half way.
As I run the group for support here in Australia I can tell you first hand the damage it has done to people. Suicide is at the top of the list.
Collateral damage is very high from its Hate message.
Most throw the baby out with the bath water after rejection.
Please till me why you would hang around.
Then the Hate starts on both sides.
I live in Gay relationship and have done for more than 27 years. Yes I have been there and I don't condemn.
What I do condemn is the narrow mindedness of some people.
"Given these circumstances, we should not be surprised when we discover among us those who say homosexuality is a sin and those who deny it."
Perhaps a better way to say this would be "who say homosexuality is a sin, and who say it isn't". Saying that those of us who don't believe it is a sin are 'denying it' is implying that, deep down, we really do believe it is a sin and just won't admit it.
I respect you enough to accept that your beliefs are what you say they are. Please respect me enough to do the same.
First, a slight correction: Although Roy Gane and Richard Davidson helped organize the conference, Nick Miller was the principle organizer.
I appreciate Dr. Weiss's thoughts on how the Bible defines sin, and to me it illustrates what I see as the deeper division in our church, which is in how we read the Bible and understand inspiration.
I concur with Linda on the need for civil and courteous discourse, although I understand the deep emotions aroused by this subject. And I echo Jeff's appeal to keep our blogs from degenerating into equating homosexuality only with a particular sexual act, which doesn't need to be graphically described.
And I thank Robert Sontor for saying very clearly the way I feel about this issue.
I do not believe the softly softly approach has done any good.
Take a look at the Conference.
Sorry but I see only more hate on this subject on these threads.
The time for talking is fast approaching its used by date.
I am Gay and I am not just a supporter.
I do live in Australia and whether I like it or not what happens in the SDA church in the USA happens here.
Study has been done to death and you can never prove either way.
We are here and have been from the year dot.
Accept and get on with it. That is a problem and wars are stated over just that.
The church worries about storms in a tea cup more than it does this issue and from looking at the Creation story that proves it.
Paulsen and any person that comes after him is not going change the status quo anytime soon.
What we all have to do is Live and let Live.
Love each other with all our differences or that is a sin in the eyes of God.
That has been proved!!
Yes this is my opinion.
Yes Jamie, it is the old saying we will truly Love you only when you Change.
That has been stated time and time again.
Paulsen got on Video because the Creation story was been pulled apart.
Doesn't that show you where its prioritizes lie.
It doesn't matter that people are dying over this issue.
Life does not matter to them.
Only its good name.
It is a train-wreck waiting to happen and it is in progress.
Well it is gratifying to finally see someone calling for a biblical understanding of sin that amounts to more than a meaningless cliche.
Thank you Harold for this call.
The standard Adventist, and perhaps the wider Christian community, quote has always been from 1st John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" without ever explaining or perhaps really understanding
What is "transgression"?
The etymology of the word "transgression" means to move, move across, move away from, break away from, and in a legal connotation it means to break a law. We as adventist, however, have understood the "law" (the Ten Commnadments) to be more than a legal document and see it as the very character of God, His character of love. So in its deeper meaning I conclude that transgression means to move away from God himself or to fail to believe that LOVE can solve the conflict between good (GOD Gud) and evil.
In fact I find the verses in Jeremiah 2:13 to say exactly that. "For my people have committed two evils (Sins); they have forsaken (IE seperated) themsleves from me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water (Jesus is the living water).
This lack of trust in God leads us to all sorts of pshychological difficulties in trying to live life and find acceptance.
Here is a comment from one author who I believe supports this very Idea:
Behold Your God
By F.T.Wright
[v]
Introduction
It is safe to say that three facts are common to us all.
The first is that we have, either consciously or subconsciously, a definite opinion about the character of God. Even though little direct thought or specific expression may have been given to the topic, it is true nonetheless.
The second is that our attitude toward God, our treatment of others, and our receptivity of truth are determined by these
opinions.
The third is that all of us were born predispositioned to possess a false concept of God which in turn has been confirmed and extended by environmental educational influences. Unless delivered from this and initiated into a true knowledge of God, it will be impossible to enter into a full and perfect Christian experience,----------
Isn't this exactly what jesus came to do.
John 17:3- "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Verse 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Verse 5 e And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Verse 6 I have manifested thy name (character) unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world:
Then this comment from E G white" further supports this concept.
"The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the very character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Mal. 4:2.
I would submit to you that the ancient peoples even the Israelites did not know when it was their own preconceived ideas that led to them to believe it was God speaking to them.
Another word that I believe we have much difficulty with is the word "Holiness." What is holiness? once again I believe E G White had an insight into this when in various places she says holiness is to be in HARMONY with God.
Is God in harmony with his own character of love when he uses punishment & death as a corrective measure or are the consequences of our own action what brings suffering and pain?
If God is Holy then how can he act in an arbitrary way to his character of love to get obedience. Or is obedience as blind faith what God wants.
You can get obedience with the use of force but you can not get loyalty and love.
Paul in Ephesians 2:3 tells us "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and we were by NATURE THE CHILDREN OF WRATH, even as others.
Harold has given us the defintitons of WRATH from Romans 1 that should further help us to see that GOD is not the one who brings punishment and death.
Further more in Jeremiah 7 21-27 Jeremiah says Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
Verse 22 For I spake NOT unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Verse 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey (listen) my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded (Taught) you, that it may be well with you.
Verse 24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart (Ignorant minds), and went backward, and not forward. (They further seperated themselves from God)
Verse 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all
servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
Verse 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.
Verse 27 Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.
Verse 28 But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth (listens) not to the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.
It is clear to me that it was not God who wanted sacrifices but the people themselves who in their dysfunctional minds wanted them.
Also in Jeremiah 2:19 they/we are told-- Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken (seperated from) the LORD thy God, and that my fear (respect and trust) is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
Verse 20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.
Verse 21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?
And then again in Jeremiah 4: 18 He says (NIV) your own conduct and actions have brought this upon you. This is your punishment. How bitter it is" how it pierces the heart ( it should peirce the mind as well but??) In verses 22 He say my people are fools; they do not know me. They are sensless children; they have no UNDERSTANDING. Chapter 5 verse 4 says These are only the poor they are foolish, for they do not know the way of the lord. Chapter 6:10 To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The word of the lord is offensive to them, they find no pleasure it it. (They have separated themselves from me) .
In chapter 8 verse 8 How can we say we are wise for we have the law of the lord when actaully the lyin pen of the scribes has handeled it falsly? 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no Physician (a pshychologist perhaps) there? Why then is there no healing for he wounds of my people?
The book of Jeremiah is full of these bits of wisedom.
Jesus came preaching and teaching healing and forgiveness and his people rejected and murdered him him.
Jeremiah chapter 9:23 & 24 Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man bost of his strengtrh or the rich man bost of his riches, but let him that boasts, boast about this that, he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who exercises Kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares the lord.
Post new comment