Sabbath Sermon: Adam and Steve

[Gerr]

I think you are missing the point, Gerry. Context is important to understand what is really being condemned. By narrowly focusing on just one proof text one can miss the greater meaning, other equally important elements, or even the true message being given in the whole story.

Ezekiel is a great example of that. The Ezekiel bread is not described as some healthful multigrain bread as marketing geniuses now would have us believe by narrowly promoting it based on one verse from a Biblical Prophet. A natural reaction - "It must be a perfect God ordained recipe for bread!!" But... It's very much different if you read the full context. God was using Ezekiel as a living demonstration of the the abhorant and disgusting fate of the people if they didn't mend their ways. Here is your fate. In your captivity will have to eat bread scraped together from remnants of what grains are left over and bake it over a fire fueled by your own dung.

And then there is the modern twisting of the story of Sodom to have but one narrow take away from one poorly understood verse taken out of the whole context to teach that homosexuality is so evil that God destroyed a whole city because of it. From that we get the modern era word for gay sex - sodomy. Forget that the mob of sodomizers was actually all the people of the city, young and old, men and women. Ignore the abhorrent alternate solution offered up by Lot himself of handing over his own daughters rather than his honored guests. And ignore the real reason God did what he did to Sodom as the prophet Ezekiel explains. It really was their arrogance and disregard for the needs of others.

It would not be the first time nor the last that  I missed a point.  I have not looked at the context of the Ezekiel bread.  While it's true that too many people narrowly focus on homosexuality as the defining sin of Sodom, neither did the prophet Ezekiel overlook it when he said that they "committed abomination before Me" (NKJV).. If the pont that you think I'm missing is about Lev 18:22, then show the error. 

[NJK Project]

I fail to see how this topic is related to how the Lord may use women in ministry. There are both Biblical and historical precedents for the Lord using women in serving Him- Deborah, Ellen White, women church leaders in China, early Adventist pioneers, etc etc. The question is whether they should be ordained in ministry. There is precedent for former homosexuals becoming active in the church- Paul says so also were some of you. I have friends who are homosexual, both current and former. I believe we should pray for and witness to homosexuals in a kind way. But there is no record in the Bible of the Lord using practicing homosexuals in his work. We are all sinners and seek a better country but church order demands that those who wilfully continue in open sins of this nature not be in regular standing in the church, similar to those living in adultery embezzling from the church or selling drugs.

I too was initially skeptical of the claim of a relation of accepting Woman Ordination and then “surely” also accepting Homosexuality. I though that this was merely a scare tactic from the opposed side....

(And the presence of OT precedence of women as (Chief) Judge and Prophets is indeed what warrants that God can, in the NT, also use women for the topmost positions in His Israel...and there are no “priestly” positions in the New Covenant, everyone, whether male or female, can directly go to God to have their sins dealt with, and not to a priest). See more on this WO topic here

...But this abhorrent demonstration by Jonathan Henderson is indeed what the WO-opposed side had claimed, most tellingly by JH using the same example of “God letting Israel have a king” to justify that change. Then there are all of the other mind-boggling ways that the current SDA pro-sides such so amateurishly and shoddingly, even proof-textingly, twist and claim Scriptures for their position.

But what differentiates the issues here is that in the OT/Law, God had long and clearly prepared for Israel wanting to have a King (Deut 17:14-20). There is no such “Divine Provision” by God in the entire Bible, OT or NT, for practising homosexuality. Indeed only many clear expressions against practising it!

[Kevin H]

I am sad about the issues of Women's Ordination and homosexuality are being discussed at the same time with how the opponents of women's ordination say that if you accept women's ordination that you will end up accepting homosexuals into the church.

 

The issue is whether we want to be fair to the Bible or whether we want to teach for the word of God the traditions of man.

 

What we are finding is evidence in the Bible that women's ordination was indeed a Biblical doctrine, practiced by Jesus and respected by Paul. So this becomes a positive Biblical point.

 

The issue about homosexuality is again only that we are finding problems with the context of the proof texts used against them and at the farthest extreme the discoveries may find that the Bible is silent and neutral on the topic of what the people struggling with homosexuality are going through.

 

Thus we are finding a situation of people rejecting what the Bible is indeed teaching out of fear of the discovery that the Bible is silent on another topic.

[Gerr]

 

 

The issue is whether we want to be fair to the Bible or whether we want to teach for the word of God the traditions of man.

 

What we are finding is evidence in the Bible that women's ordination was indeed a Biblical doctrine, practiced by Jesus and respected by Paul. So this becomes a positive Biblical point.

,

The issue about homosexuality is again only that we are finding problems with the context of the proof texts used against them and at the farthest extreme the discoveries may find that the Bible is silent and neutral on the topic of what the people struggling with homosexuality are going through.

 

Thus we are finding a situation of people rejecting what the Bible is indeed teaching out of fear of the discovery that the Bible is silent on another topic.

I am at a loss as to why you keep harping about problems in the context of proof text and yet have not shown me how Moses could have missed the point in Leviticus other than to say that it was of Canaanite origin.  I ask you again, did God declare the practice inherently abominable?  or was it abominable only because the Canaanites practiced it?  And would it now be okay if we put a loving Christian or even a monogamous cloak on it?  It seems to me, it is not enough just to question context; it is even more important to show any positive Bible statements that would affirm homosexual practice.  IOW, since we have a number of passages condemning this lifestyle, it is not enough to say, "they are out of context."  Show me one proof text affirming it.

[LifeHiscost]

Show me one proof text affirming it.

I like to give contrary views and ask where they've been rescinded, and if truly so, what sense would it make. .

 

24Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves; 25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.

26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; 27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

28And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly; 29having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers, 30evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31unintelligent, faithless, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; 32who the righteous judgment of God having known — that those practising such things are worthy of death — not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them. Romans 1

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Kevin H]

Gerry: If you were to read the quote you just copied into your post, I come right out and say that while I see the Bible as actually teaching women's ordination. I do not see any text affirming (or condemning for that matter) what homosexuals are dealing with.

 

I just wrote you a post, but there was a very long time of trying to upload the post and finally gave up. I copied to paste but it won't let me past what I just wrote.

 

Anyway, I was trying to point out that Lev 18:22 was in the contexts of HETEROSEXUALS engaging in with the whole congregation at the temple having an orgy, in which they were having sex with man, women, children and animals, with relatives and neighbors.

 

The word translated "abomination" is a very specific term that the linguists say has only one application and that is to things dealing with idol worship that is completely unbeneficial to the person doing this act of worship, but which the person thinks is doing something for them. In other words, a stupid superstition.

 

And that stupid superstition is that when a man had sex with another man that it was helping Baal to be able to give their children more food and for their wives to bear them more and healthier children.

 

Leviticus 18:22 is condemning HETEROSEXUAL men from thinking that this orgy is helping god and that it will help their wife bear him more children.

 

What is there not to condemn in this action? It is absolutely horrible.

 

However, we are taking the words to describe the condemnation of these orgies and applying them to people who are not going to orgies hoping that it will help their god and for their wife to have more children.

[Gerr]

 

 

 

In the case of WO, I agree with you.  I see nothing in Scripture that either affirms or condemns it.  But with same gender sex, there are too many statements to condemn it and NONE to affirm it.

 

 

 

 

Let us allow Scriptures to do the talking instead of scholars.  And here is how it uses the word "abomination".

 

ESV　|　Ge 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination [toeba] to the Egyptians.

 

ESV　|　Le 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [toeba].

 

ESV　|　Pr 16:5 Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination [toeba] to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.

 

ESV　|　Pr 11:1 A false balance is an abomination [toeba] to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.

 

ESV　|　Pr 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination toeba] to the LORD.

 

I am no scholar, but I see no such restriction of the term in these verses only to idolatry.  I can provide more passages if you want. 

 

 

 

Where in the text or context does it say that it applies only to heterosexuals?  Wrong for heterosexuals but right for homosexuals?  Is God partial?

 

So are you  saying that homosexual acts that are not done in the setting of idolatry or orgy are okay?

[Gerr]

Had this debate recently with a lecturer at one of our colleges who is hiding behind the fallacious term "celibate gay" in order to fly under the radar.

 

His theory is that he is attracted to other males but does not act on it....just like a hetero is attracted to the opposite sex but doesnt act on lustful thoughts in their minds or bodies.....this is very sneaky reasoning by a satanic source. He says he has a homosexual "orientation" like its some sort of normal natural development in anyone persons upbringing. 

 

He says he is not tempted only "attracted" like a normal hetero attraction. But when does attraction become temptation? I would submit that when it is an unhealthy attraction like when it is thoughts about that which God clearly indicates as taboo. So when my "romantic" (his words) "attraction" happens towards another woman other than my wife then I know those thoughts are wrong....I dont justify them by calling them "normal" or say they are the same as two young heterosexuals falling in love.Its not going to help me by calling myself celibate or accepting thats just how I am......I am in danger if it continues.....

 

For arguments sake, if we agree that attraction is not automatically temptation, and..... if we are dealing with normal attraction that happens between heterosexual couples, then the kind of attraction you have described is NOT the same and would NOT be considered healthy or natural. Your aligning normal healthy heterosexual attraction with "gay attraction" (whatever that means), and is confusing at least and unbiblical at best.

 

The bible talks of our thoughts as the seat of decision making and temptation to sin, and so "attractions" can be healthy or not healthy. If the act of homosexuality is condemned in scripture, then the "attractions" surrounding it are not healthy and you cannot justify or hide it behind an "orientation" which seems to be a convenient way to take the heat off what essentially is a dangerous liaison. 

If we took the same logic for other "attractions/orientations" then we would have a very interesting situation indeed. Beastiality and peadophilic "attractions/orientations" would be ok as long as we did not act on them........so the church could employ these people as they are only "oriented" that way.........the sky would be the limit....

I think I can agree with this man. It is not sin to be attracted to the same sex but not acting on it or, I might add, acting on it in the mind. Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.  By His grace, so can we. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin:

 

Copy & Paste:  For some reason I cannot copy & paste in this forum while using Internet Explorer.  However, when I use Firefox, I can copy and paste into this forum.

 

Try another brouser.

[Kevin H]

Gerry: Once again the context of Lev 18:22 is in talking about worship practices. There are things that the Canaanites did when they went to the temple on especially the high holy days. The Hebrews took over those same days (since they were the agricultural cycle of the land of Canaan) and would do many of the same traditions. However God did not want them to take over the uniting of their life forces like the pagans did. They were not to go to church and have an orgy. Do you think that in the Canaanite religion that only the homosexuals went to church and this was talking to them and if any heterosexuals were tempted to go to church then it applied to them?

 

You keep wanting to separate that verse from what it is talking about and re-apply it to a completely different context.

 

But I also understand where you are coming from because I had the same understanding for most of my life. It is just as I learned more about the verse and it's context that I finally came to the conclusion that I've been misapplying the verse. I can't say that I've had all my questions answered, and frankly I'm at a disadvantage because I am not interested enough in the topic to really become an expert in it. I have friends who struggle with it and have seen what they have gone through. And I've learned things in our college classes at our Seventh-day Adventist colleges, and have studied the ancient Canaanite religion. I've heard a Seminary professor who was lecturing in Loma Linda who was actually talking about a different topic but made a quick comment quoting Lev 18:22 then he said "I know that this text in it's context is not talking about homosexuality, but we do need to broaden it's application and therefore apply it to them." then returned to the theme of his lecture. I know that our scholars, on both sides of the issue have said that this verse is not talking about homosexuals and they are arguing whether to leave the text to simply it's context and thus not use it against homosexuals, or to broaden it's application to include them. And I will let them fight it out. I just happen to be aware of this argument and discussions among our leaders and I am just sharing it so that we can be informed and to make our own decisions and do our own study.

 

I'm a heterosexual. Unfortunately single, but each day I hope that I will finally meet someone. I would hate to forcibly impose the hell that I live in day after day upon someone without having the hope that I have that at least get's me through the day.

 

Once again when Jesus comes I could very well have him look at me with anger in his eyes as he criticizes what I've said and says to you "Well done good and faithful servant."

 

However, I only know enough about these verses where I have questions about their application to those people. Have seen the pain that childhood friends of mine have dealt with as when we entered into the age where I started to notice girls in a new and exciting way, and they found that they did not have that but were instead seeing other guys that way. I know the pain I go through as a single male, but having hope of one day meeting someone (I've been in a lot of not meeting anyone, going from church to church find old people with their grandchildren maybe an occasional married couple in attendance; sometimes meeting someone who I find attractive but they are not interested or in a relationship, sometimes seeing someone who likes me but who I'm not interested, and the few times when it was mutual attraction where either a war would break out or jobs change or something that rips us apart into a long distance relationship where she eventually meets someone new) but I at least have hope. I'd hate to impose upon someone this life with no hope...

 

A big criticism Jesus had of the religious leaders in his day was that they were interpreting the Bible in a way that was keeping people out of God's kingdom, making it very exclusive instead of inclusive. And knowing about how our leaders are arguing over the application of these "proof Texts" I wonder if our application of them is similar to the way Jewish Leaders applied them to be exclusive.  

 

I know enough about the arguments that our leaders are bringing up about these texts to fear that if I were go once again believe like I use to believe and like you believe, that at the second coming Jesus might say to me that I ended up pushing people away from him who he could have worked with. I'd rather give them a hope and a looking to Jesus that may end up being a false hope, then to just be a gate saying that they can't come to Jesus unless they change, or ok they can come to him but if they want to stay then they have to...

 

Animals and children cannot understand and therefore is abuse. Promiscuity prevents the deep relationships from forming and develops an attitude of conquest and dismissal and selfishness, rather than relationship and togetherness and love that we need to develop Christ-like character. Adultery is betrayal.

 

I may be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong with leaving them in a place where they would be more open to God's spirit to work on them then to be wrong as a gatekeeper telling them that they can't be in this special position for God's spirit to work on them (an active member of a church) unless they first change or decide to live a disconnected life.

[Gerr]

 

 

 

I must be dense because I fail to see the logic of your reasoning.  1) Are you saying that in a non-worship setting same sex coitus is okay for the Israelite or Christian?   2)  The whole book of Leviticus, as I understand when I read it, is not just about worship but about holy living in general.  IMO, one cannot separate what he/she does in church from actions outside the church.  True religion is not something one puts when we enter the church door and take it off when we get out.   3)  If it's wrong for heterosexuals, is it right for homosexuals?  4)  WHERE is the context that makes this text apply only to heterosexuals and not also to homosexuals?  

 

"You shall not lie with male as with a woman; it is an abomination."  How can the statement be made any clearer?  You can look at ALL the preceding verses and ALL that follows to get the context, and show where it applies ONLY to heterosexuals and ONLY in worship.

 

Homosexuals are not the only ones struggling with sin.  Everyone has one or three that are of particular concern.  We ALL need redeeming grace.

 

 

[Woody]

I am not a homosexual ..... but I am just as much condemned to death as they are.

[Tom Wetmore]

Why do you ask?

 

Why don't you answer?

[Woody]

We are all attracted to sin. Sin is desirable but what we do with that desire is important.

[LifeHiscost]

We are all attracted to sin. Sin is desirable but what we do with that desire is important.

However we are not all necessarily attracted to the same sin(s). Unless of course we lump all as the same (as SIN) compared to sin. And then again, there seems to be three general classifications  which if one falls in any one of those three, they are guilty of all, even as noted by Scripture.

 

15Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever....1 John 2

 

10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.…James 2  emphasis theirs'  LHC

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Woody]

I have no doubt that I am condemned to death.

[LifeHiscost]

I have no doubt that I am condemned to death.

Not by the Lord of Life. You don't need to be put out of your misery. You just need the touch of the Master's hand.

 

…46"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. 47"If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48"He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.…John 12

 

…9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. 11"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.…John 10

 

5Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU," 6so that we confidently say, "THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?"….Hebrews 13 emphasis theirs'   LHC

 

Keep looking up.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[LifeHiscost]

Why don't you answer?

Because I have experienced the results of one in charge previously that chose to be offended when what was said was not to their liking and I don't wish to put myself in the same position again.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

[Woody]

Very wise LHC. One does need to be cautious of voicing opinions contrary to moderators. You are wise beyond your years.

[Gregory Matthews]

LHC, Moderators are people who post here just like everyone else.  As such, they post like everyone else. That would only be a problem if a Moderator were to use the poser to edit & delete in an inappropriate manner.

 

As I recall, there was a time when you posted in a manner that people often did not understand you.  In recent times, you have been understood, more often, as I say you, anyway.

 

If you think that you have been inappropriately treated by a Moderator, you can always appeal to Stan, Tom or Gail.

[Woody]

lol

[LifeHiscost]

Very wise LHC. One does need to be cautious of voicing opinions contrary to moderators. You are wise beyond your years.

Thanks Woody. Probably most people thrive better when there shown appreciation instead of censure. As far as wisdom is concerned, I see so many failures in my past that I'm pretty sure brought lingering pain and emotional suffering, to some closest to me, that only my consistent grasping of God's promises to the willing repentant keeps me from checking out early. And even that isn't an unselfish thought since I'm too old for selfish desires of attaining excellence in this world of rubbish. We can always choose the benefit of allowing the overruling presence of the Holy Spirit to turn our failures into victories for the glory of God.

 

…19But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place? 20"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. 21"So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones." So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them....Genesis 50

 

That sounds kind of pious so I'll just give this caveat. I didn't say it. God did, for those willing to accept it.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Tom Wetmore]

LHC,

 

That does seem to be just a further cop out.  I am not asking for any of the ideas you have suggested.  The reason I first asked the question, "Then why do you keep sinning?" was not to accuse you or trap you or censure you nor embarrass you.  It was simply to make the point that the proposition that you indicated that God will give the victory, etc. has been greatly misused by many in the perfectionist ideology and the last generation theology crowd.  The premise that is that we can achieve a state of sinless perfection, and must before the Lord's return.  God has promised, so we just need to claim it and we can overcome all sin in our lives.  But asking my question simply unmasks the singular lack of success and the exercise in futility in that ideology.  Not a single person advocating the Last Generation Theology ideas can with honesty and confidence answer that they are yet free from sinning.  I really did not expect that you would either.  It is not to put you down or discourage you.  It is simply facing the reality of our sinful existence this side of the Second Coming.

 

Our only hope of salvation is the accept that we are only righteous by faith, by accepting that our Substitute is righteous and we can only be saved though His righteousness.  

 

And in the context of this thread we are no better or worse off than anyone in the LGBTQ community.  

[bonnie]

 

 

And in the context of this thread we are no better or worse off than anyone in the LGBTQ community.  

Can you show where anyone has made the claim that the LGBTQ is worse than anyone else?

This does seem to rapidly becoming a protected "sin". Unless you condone and affirm this lifestyle you are a hopelessly narrow minded self righteous bigot.

Standing ready to use force and sue anyone that believes to take part in a gay marriage is  wrong.They should be allowed to live with those they choose without harassment. Those that believe it to be wrong as in any other sin should be allowed their beliefs without harassment or lawsuits ,or condemnation from the more liberal faction

 

.Many denominations don't have a problem performing a gay wedding ceremony.Those will be ignored in favor of those that feel it violates their conscience ,put them out of business or sue.

[bonnie]

You cant be a "celibate gay" and say this is ok.....

Can you be straight and celibate?  A gay person can and some do refrain from the gay lifestyle