Literalism, homosexuality, beards and fabrics

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And do you intend to say that "being" gay is a sin?

Don't bother to dump a bunch of scripture. Answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, being happy isn't a sin.

---

Your friend,

Dave M

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

So then, can we start with a premise that says all sins (i.e., transgressions of "the" law) are equally bad, and safely and properly use that as a basis for deriving conclusions? I for one find that very questionable. Follow the logic and note where the diverging paths take you just in general. Or specifically here, compare the various points that have been made in this thread to see whether they fit under the heading of "Weighted" or "Unweighted". Do you see any patterns emerging? ... any contrasts becoming clearer? What do you associate with one versus the other?

---

Some sins are more weighty that others. However, even the lightest weight sin will keep one out of heaven. You may have committed only one minor sin. I may have committed many heinous sins. Won't both of us be lost?

Again, both of us must find outselves at the foot of the cross in repentence for whatever sinfulness we possess.

Your friend,

Dave M.

[Bravus]

Exactly, Dave!

The 'weight' is in terms of consequences on earth: the 'weight' of every sin is the same in heaven - one death of the Son of God.

[Dr. Shane]

The consequences of being a homosexual here on earth are terrible for the vast majority of homosexuals. That is what the sympathetic liberals really don't understand. The right to be a homosexual is the right to be miserable in most cases. This is true even in areas like San Fransico where the lifestyle is not only accepted but celebrated.

Being fat can be a sin. However I feel confident that there are a lot more happy and content fat people than there are happy and content gays.

[Bravus]

Shane - you've made this assertion about 4 times now, and I know that you have relevant experience on which you're basing it, but I wondered: how much of that misery is caused by bigotry from outside and guilt from inside? In other words, how much of the misery would be averted if gay people didn't have to live with the attitudes and hate from non-gay people? How much of it is intrinsic to gay life itself? I'm not asking this with any hostility, but with genuine curiosity.

[there buster]

Unfortunately, you're mixing categories.

"Being drunk," is not the same as "being a drunk." Alcoholics will tell you that they are always alcoholics, no matter how long it has been since they've had a drink.

People who claim to "be" gay (once again, I simply use their terminology, and do not pretend to know), that is, have sexual attraction to persons of the same sex, may or may not engage in "gay sex."

If I understand you, you make no difference between "being" and "acting." Sounds like you make no difference vulnerability and choice, between temptation and sin.

I am human, and therefore vulnerable to temptation. I may be angry, and tempted to hate. But if I do not yield to that temptation, would you say that I'm still guilty?

And please don't go wandering off on other topics. There's no point until we get this straight.

[Amelia]

*tacking on. Begin babbling*

Yes, homosexual activity is a sin. As are many other things taking place in our world. Isnt it our responsibility, along with prayer and the Holy Spirit, to work at overcoming our sins? I mean really work at it!!!!! Jesus died for our sins and we are forgiven when we give our lives over to Him. But really, we cant do that and then blithely keep sinning, expecting to keep being forgiven without consequences, can we? I think the Catholics work it that way and have confession as a result. But like the child who sasses one too many times and loses dessert, shouldnt we expect some type of punishment? The adultress was told to go and sin no more, but I bet she was referred to as "that adultress" by the village people for a long time. Thats the nature of humans, no never let you forget. And thats for us, the sinner, to live with as a consequence of our sin.

I blame many new churches and their slant to bring people in the door. "Jesus loves you and you were created "that" way". Well yes, Jesus does love you. No you were not created "that" way (read the book). But I dont think He much loves the way you are corrupting His word to suit your own agenda. "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Yes, love sinners. Give them all the support they need to overcome. Yes, hate the sin. We all sin and have sinned. We are not perfect. Keep in check that holier than thou 'tude when speaking of others. But hey, you keep on doing that same sin, over and over and over again. Jesus DIED for you. I think He deserves better than a scofflaw, dont you?

*quit babbling*

[there buster]

Quote:

---

"Jesus loves you and you were created "that" way"

---

It seems to me you have identified the central issue.

Homosexuals claim that God made them that way, and therefore their attraction is natural to them.

If we accept that they are indeed created that way, it dictates one approach to them.

If we find we must reject that claim, it dictates a quite different approach.

So, I pose the question: Are gays and lesbians made that way by God?

On what basis could we accept or reject that proposition?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

how much of that misery is caused by bigotry from outside and guilt from inside?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Bigotry from the outside is virtually nonexistant today in the US - es[ecially in areas like San Fransico. Homosexuality is very accepted. Those that don't accept it are chastised. Hollywood and academia have normalized homosexuality.

Guilt from the inside is still very real. That is because healthy guilt comes from the Holy Spirit. The fact that homosexuals still feel guilt is evidence that God has not given up on them.

However it is more than that. There are many people that suffer bigotry and guilt and don't become drug addicts, suffer severe depression and commit suicide.

Homosexuality is one of the devil's counterfeits - like stealing. The devil tempts thieves to steal from others with the promise that being able to aquire money without honest work will bring about happiness. Yet God's Word speaks to the contrary. Hard work brings about a reward greater than just the wages one recieves. In the same respect the devil tempts those with a homosexual orientation to act on their attraction with the promise that a physical relationship with the same sex will bring about true happiness.

A reformed gay man once shared with me that same sex "love" is like a thirsty man in the desart finding a glass of urine and believing it to be water, only to discover otherwise once they start to drink it. A gay relationship cannot give the people in it what they need to sastisfy their longings. Even a hetrosexual relationship without Christ will fail its designed purpose.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

So, I pose the question: Are gays and lesbians made that way by God?

---

Gen 2:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Homosexuals claim that God made them that way, and therefore their attraction is natural to them.

If we accept that they are indeed created that way, it dictates one approach to them."

I will make a couple fo comments:

a) The roots of homosexuality are multifactoral, and in my opinion, we really know little about those roots. However, I am totally convinced that true homosexuality is NOT a choice. The person may have been born a homosexual. [NOTE: The evidence is weak for a homosexual gene. One can be born a homosexual without postulating a homosexual gene.] There may have been other factors that have caused a person to be a homosexual. But, in any case, it is not a true choice.

Therefore, there is truth in the statement that one was created homosexual by factors outside of the control of that individual.

If one can say that one was created a homosexual does that imply that it was God who so created them? No, it does not.

God created back in Eden. I can not accept that the Bible teaches that God created, in Eden, some people to be homosexual, and some to be heterosexual. If that is true, God did not create back in Eden homosexuals.

But, the plan of salvation, and the teaching of the Bible, is that God has assumed responsibility for everything in human life on earth. God has assumed responsibility for conditions here on earth that God did not create. From that standpoint, one might say that God created me, in the condition that I am now in. God is responsibile, even if God did not directly cause me to be what I am.

c) Did Satan created homosexuals? Folks, I can not give Satan the power that some often give him. Saten bears responsibiliity for sin. But, Adam and Eve requested that God give them the opportunity to show the world that they could create. (Yes, that is Biblical.) In many ways, the world that we live in is a world of our own creation. We, as humans are responsibile.

d) If a homosexual was born homosexual, and did not chose to be one, does that mean that the homosexual is required to live a chaste life. Once you have answered that question, does that mean that a homosexual is required to live a celebate life. (Folks those two words differ in meaning.)

On the celebate life: The Biblical standard, as I see it is that activities related to sexual intercourse should take place between a male, and a female, committed to each other in a life-long relationship. Yes, this may place a greater burden on a homosexual than on a hetero sexual. But, it applies to both.

On the issue of chastity: I do NOT believe that either homosexuals, or heterosexuals are required to abstain from all forms of sexual realease. I do not have a problem with people not in a committed, lifelong, relatonship with an adult of the opposite sex seeking sexual release by other means than sexual intercourse.

[Bravus]

Just a quick note - I see that the book you recommended has arrived at the library, Gregory so I'll pick that up today and read it over the next couple of weeks.

[there buster]

A very thoughtful answer.

Also one with some inherent controversy.

Regarding the distinction between chastity and celibacy; it seems to me one might be chaste but not celibate (as in marriage, though not married person is chaste, even if they have sex with no one other than their mate); one might be celibate but not chaste; and in some cases true chasity and celibacy would be the same.

On the issue of sexual release vs. sexual intercourse, I will remain silent, for the simple reason that I have neither significant knowledge nor a formed opinion. I just don't know, and my inclination is to defer to your experience.

I concur that homosexuals were not created by God as homosexuals. It simply cannot be reconciled with Scripture or logic.

Regarding whether it is chosen or not I remain open. Again, I just don't know.

If it is not chosen, then homosexuality, can be regarded as a sort of birth defect. None of which were intended by God, and all of which are the results of Sin (not necessarily particular sins). I mean that only as descriptive, not as pejorative. Birth defects can range from the relatively benign and easily correctible to the profound and untreatable. And it is ignoble in the extreme to ridicule or persecute someone with a birth defect, be it a cleft palate or Down's syndrome, or something more profound.

Does that sound reasonable?

[Gregory Matthews]

Bravus:

I am glad that the book came. In many ways it is an old book. As I have not read it in a long time, I do not remember all of the details. (I do own a copy.)

When I first read it, when it first came out, I considered it a monumental work for the SDA Chruch, and as coming from a Theology professor at Southern--quite a conservative school. I personally found it stimulating, and helpful to me.

It is possible that if I were to read it again, I would have some different opinons on some parts? I do not know. My life experience is different from what it once was. I have had extensive contact with homosexuals through working with people with AIDS.

Anyway, feel free to let us know what you think of it.

Peace,

Gregory

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

If I understand you, you make no difference between "being" and "acting." Sounds like you make no difference vulnerability and choice, between temptation and sin.

I am human, and therefore vulnerable to temptation. I may be angry, and tempted to hate. But if I do not yield to that temptation, would you say that I'm still guilty?

---

I appreciate your response. In putting one's thoughts into words sometimes leaves the thoughts poorly stated.

As far as the law in concerned, there is a big difference between "being" and "acting". If I murder, I may bae executed. IF I only hate, the law can doing nothing to me. That is the way human courts work.

If you hate, but do not follow through, then morally you are quilty. You will not go to jail. But neither will you go to heaven unless you repent of your hatred and allow the Holy Spirit to change you into a loving individual.

Your friend,

Dave M

But God's court works differently. God equates hating the same as murder. No laws exist (as far as I know) against being fat, or against drinking. In God's court system, we will be held accountable for doing anything to our bodies that hurt the way is works.

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

Homosexuals claim that God made them that way, and therefore their attraction is natural to them.

If we accept that they are indeed created that way, it dictates one approach to them.

If we find we must reject that claim, it dictates a quite different approach.

So, I pose the question: Are gays and lesbians made that way by God?

On what basis could we accept or reject that proposition?

---

How many gay people do you know? Have any gay people told you to your face that "God made them that way"? Frankly, of the gay people I know, none have made that a claim.

The reality is that most gay people cannot tell you how they became gay. Even if they were born with gay tendencies, we cannot way God did it. There are many "gay" people who have been converted and joined various churches. However, most will carry with them all their lives the tendency to be attracted to the same sex. But this tendecy is not sin and we are not held accountable for it. As long as one keeps hold of a loving Savior, he will not slip back into his old life style.

The "old nature" all of us are born with cannot, will not, change. That is why the Holy Spirit must create an entirely new nature that naturally yields to the Spirit's promptings. We cannot work on this. The Spirit does all this creating. But we can work on keeping out hand in the hand of Jesus.

Your friend,

Dave M

[Jeannieb43]

Wow, Bravus. You've started a firestorm! Seven pages in three days!

Since I've had time to read only the first page and the last, may I be bold to ask: The subject of whether or not to interpret the Bible literally arises also in the Creation story context... to say nothing of in the story of the rich man and Lazarus... in the story of the Levite and the concubine... and also in the phrase "take a little wine for they stomach's sake"... -- and: "This generation shall not pass before I return."

I'd love to have some expert really tell me how we know the difference between the literal and the figurative interpretations -- and how best to explain it to nonbelievers.

[Bravus]

Jeannie - Ed Dickerson had a great perspective on these particular texts in Leviticus that I started the thread with, that made sense to me. The 'take a little wine' one I don't think is a problem: Adventists who have thought about it at all (pace Dr Bacciochi (sp?)) usually acknowledge that the Bible teaches us to avoid drunkenness but not to be teetotallers, and that Adventists choose total abstinence as a health issue rather than because they believe drinking alcohol is a sin...

The rich man and Lazarus is an interesting one, because it's one we as SDAs are very happy to just dismiss out of hand, even though it's Jesus speaking.

Thanks for kicking in some new ideas - the big gay boat has sailed already. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[there buster]

I don't claim to be an "expert," but I have been successful in helping people understand the Bible for themselves. My specialty among SDA's has been in inductive Bible study and teaching--deriving meaning from the text, not imposing meaning on it. In that role, I've spoken for the church on three continents on varying topics, including the book of Revelation.

I've also had some success in explaining difficult questions to non-SDA's, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 articles in various of our outreach publications.

There are a number of rules for sound interpretation--rules which are themselves derived from the Bible. Probably the most difficult issue you raise is the one concerning Creation, although not for the reasons most think.

Anyway, I'll take a crack at helping if you like--which one first?

And, with all respect to Bravus and his kind words, we probably should start a new thread for these topics.

[Bravus]

Good call, Ed: More likely to get the people who re interested in other issues than gay, bearded literalists in poly-cotton suits! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I'm joking, but seriously, it makes a lot of sense to discuss each of these interesting issues in a new thread. I look forward to it.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Have any gay people told you to your face that "God made them that way"? Frankly, of the gay people I know, none have made that a claim.

---

There are several SDA websites where gays and lesbians make that precise claim.

In any case, it would be crucial to addressing this issue.

If you have read my posts, you will see that I believe that claim to be impossible.

[there buster]

Some would say I am a gray-bearded literalist, though I never owned a liesure suit.

[Gregory Matthews]

As to whether or not homosexuals ever claim that God made them homosexual:

I have had a number of homoxesuals make such a statement to me.

Keep in mind that the question is self-limiting. It is unlikely that a homosexual who did not believe in God would make such a statement. There are homosexuals who do not believe in God, and/or a god that is involved in human life.

[Amelia]

*tacking on*

I too have had homosexuals tell me they were created that way. I have also heard it preached from the pulpits of some churches.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

But, the plan of salvation, and the teaching of the Bible, is that God has

assumed

responsibility for everything in human life on earth. God has assumed responsibility for conditions here on earth that God did not create.

---

Satan is to blame for everything outside perfection, period! Homosexual/heterosexual sodomy is a perversion (not to mention a health issue). Homosexuality is a defect - by conception. That, however, does not mean God made them that way. Yes, He assumes the responsibility since He is sovereign, but the real blame must go to Lucifer turned Satan. I think that's what you are getting at....!?!

So I might buy that true homosexuality (with respect to bisexuality) is a birth defect - something wrong with the wiring due to the effects of sin. But the same can be said of you and I in that we are born (no, conceived) in sin. The word for this sin is iniquity - a bent to self. We are born selfish (loving self). That's why babies pitch fits when things are not going their way. They are selfish by birth. That too is a birth defect of sorts.

So none of us have one up on the homosexual. Their homosexuality makes them a sinner. They have a bent to the same sex and except for the grace of God they couldn't do anything about it.

The same is true of all of us....We are selfish, and no matter how hard we try not to be selfish, we can't change our condition. We can hide it - we can wrap it up in the robes of our self-righteousness, but we can't change our condition. Yes, through God's grace we can grow (be less selfish)....We can experience progress, but we will never be totally free from "self" is this world.

The homosexual might not be free of his condition, but he can be free of the sexual perversions.