Is there any evidence that can be gathered from this text to make us think sexual relationships between women are not sinful in the eyes of God?

Is it ever God's design that two females be together as a "couple"?

What if at least one of them believes herself to be really a male in a female body? Does this change the situation at all?

I bring this up because when my sister was teaching at an SDA school in Southern California, I became acquainted with one of her female students, who believed she was really a male. I tried to persuade her that God would help her overcome those feelings. I would send her audio tapes and talk to her about my own struggles and how God had helped me. She thanked me for them, but a few years later she had sexual reassignment surgery and is today considered a man. The last I heard this individual was "married." I do not know if this person is a Seventh-day Adventist or even a Christian.

We live in a very complex world. We face possibilities, moral choices and dilemmas that never occurred to anyone even a few decades ago.

Have to admit, when I asked my question about lesbianism I had forgotten that particular text. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the only one on that issue, right? But it does seem to fit into the same set of condemnations... I suspect it might have just got less attention in the Bible because the men who wrote the Bible were less aware it was going on!

OK, so for the remainder of the discussion we can probably safely treat the term 'homosexuality' as dealing with both kinds of same-sex relationships.

(And yeah, I'm pretty sure the Bible has nothing specifically to say about gender reassignment, since that wasn't a possibility. Perhaps there are principles that can be deduced, but let's just stick with the G and L of GLBTI for the time being!)

I agree. The transgender aspect makes everything much more complex.

I think one of the main reasons the Bible says little about women's sexuality is that men were assumed to be the ones who would initiate sexual relationships.

Don't you think that Genesis 2: 18-25, regarding God's plan that humans be together as male and female, is the key to understanding the view of the whole Bible on this subject?

I think I see a direct connection between those verses in Gen. 2 and Romans 1: 18-29.

Gen. 2 clearly portrays God's ideal, the world and mankind before the entrance of sin. After the next chapter, there is also the fact that God is willing to deal with people in situations where God's ideal is not valued. All forms of sin, of course, are a rejection of God's ideal. But does God view some sins differently than others?

Genesis 2:18-25 settles the question for us. "What need have we of any further witnesses..?" to quote Caiaphas.

The reason that there are questions regarding this issue is because the homosexual community staunchly contends God created them with same-sex attractions--thus their behavior cannot be considered sinful. It isn't surprising therefore that they would have a few "scientific" studies to support their claim. Those who have already made a place for themselve at the altar of science would naturally bring an extra offering to this idol as well.

I am certain that homosexuality does not result from genetic influences.

First, if it were specifically a genetic trait then all identical twins would have it or not have it. But this is not the case, as there are thousands of identical twins where one is gay and the other is not.

Second, inherited characteristics that are not passed on to the next generation are eliminated from the gene pool. Homosexuals reproduce less frequently than heterosexuals, and thus there should be a steadily decreasing incidence of people with homosexual tendencies. That is not the case.

Third, Scripture refers to epidemics of homosexuality that occurred in specific cultures. If homosexuality were inherited within the human family it would be constant over time and within cultures. There would not be surges and epidemics like Paul referred to. We are seeing the same thing today.

The truth is that homosexuality does not originate from any single source, and most Biblical counselors know this through experience. These desires develop in different people in a variety of ways. It is important to remember that these scenarios do NOT dictate that homosexual desires are inevitable, but that they may provide the opportunity for them to develop in some people.

Pornography
Family Dynamics (dominant mother, weak father)
Molestation
Cultural Influence (over the last 40-years the "gay" lifestyle has spread like wildfire in prosperous licentous cultures)
The Depravity of Man

Thus the claim that "I was born this way" represents a person excusing their sin and pretending that God approves of it. A person may have softer tendencies (interested in arts rather than football) and has therefore been susceptible to homosexual temptation, but that does not justify behavior that is clearly unscriptural & ungodly. A person still has a choice as to what he gives him/herself over to. Every one of us is predisposed toward some sin. James said "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust" (James 1:14). People who have a bent towards homosexuality must resist those desires of the flesh, repent of their sin, and commit themselves to living in obedience to God's Word just as a person who struggles with any other life-dominating sin. In this regard, I appreciate John's testimony of victory and fidelity to God's word even more. Thank you my brother, and praise be to God who delivers the Godly out of temptation.


brother Gerry

Indeed - Romans 1 makes it very clear.

Lev 18 makes it clear that God even judges NON-Bible aware nations for this sin.

But the issue of is it sin be tempted by that and never yield - that gets us back to Romans 3 "the depravity of the sinful nature" and Romans 7 etc where the Christian engages in warfare against the sinful nature.

Having a sinful nature is not the sin we are to overcome in this life -- it is yielding to it that is the problem.


in Christ,

Bob

Good point. Because Jesus also had a sinful nature, but just didn't ever yield to it:

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

When one turns over their heart to God ... the works just flow naturally. Not much work involved. It is like breathing. Folks ... if ye be 'workin' at it ... It ain't real. For it comes from the heart of God to our heart.

If you are expecting a benefit or wages from it ... you have the wrong motive. Your heart is in the wrong place and you will die.

Like breathing folks. There will be NO excuse for sin. He has given us all the provisions to keep from sin. If we choose NOT to KNOW him as is our privilege to know Him ... we are willfully choosing sinning.

Romans 8 - "IF by the spirit you ARE putting to death the deads of the flesh then are you the children of God".

In Romans 7 "I see the law of sin in my flesh at WAR with the law of my mind".

The lost person is plagued by the sinful nature as seen in Romans 3. When we become born-again a NEW creation is made according to 2Cor 5 and the result is WAR as we see in Romans 7 -- between those two natures.

in Christ,

Bob

I realize you are agreeing with me there - and it probably breaks protocol for the one being agreed with to post some kind of objection in response-- but...

I suppose there is a thread on this some place -- I am one of those who maintains that Christ had a sinless nature and that anyone with a sinful nature NEEDS a Savior to be cleansed from it.

(I realize that is another thread and I don't mean to derail this one with that point)

However I do agree with your basic argument that Christ overcame sin by resisting as we must - by persevering as we must - by taking the "way of escape" mentioned in 1Cor 10 -- so while I may be being somewhat picky about that one detail -- I do agree with your basic point about Christ.

in Christ,

Bob