Literalism, homosexuality, beards and fabrics

[Jeannieb43]

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

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.

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

Thanks, Ed and Bravus. I'll enjoy your explanations, wherever and in whatever order they appear.

[Just tack a note on here please, so I won't miss the new thread(s).]

[Jeannieb43]

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

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

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

But I see it keeps coming back again... and again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

So did God make me an alcoholic? Maybe alcoholics wouldn't have such a hardtime in life if people would just accept us as we are and not issist that we change. I WAS BORN THIS WAY!!!

[Dr. Shane]

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

heterosexual sodomy is a perversion (not to mention a health issue)

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

Do you know that 40% of married hetrosexual couples in Brazil claim to have anal sex and in Rio de Janero it is 50%. Only 25% of hetrosexual couples in the USA claim the same. In our culture it seems much more taboo than in others. Is the prohibition against homosexuality a prohibition against this kinky form of sex within the bounds of matrimony? If so, does such a prohibition extend to oral sex too?

[Bravus]

I believe that there are quite a few homosexual couples who also don't have intercourse this way, so again, too-simple categories are self-defeating.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If so, does such a prohibition extend to oral sex too?

---

I don't think the Bible deals with this....Health wise, I would think it's much safer than sodomy. Sodomy is perverted, period! Anyway, back to the subject.

[Dr. Shane]

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

I believe that there are quite a few homosexual couples who also don't have intercourse this way

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

What difference would it make?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

But I see it keeps coming back again... and again

---

Yes, from my days teaching elementary school:

Student: Teacher, why do they call them Submarine Sandwiches?

Me: I don't know. Why do they call them submarine sandwiches?

Student: Because they keep surfacing, and surfacing, and surfacing. . .

[Bravus]

Just that Robert sounded as he was specifically condemning anal sex, and that only. Just an observation, not an argument. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

And (tongue very far in cheek) - so, Shane, did God make you a Republican? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

Actually I disagree with Republicans a lot so I guess I have to say, God didn't make me a Republican. I am pro-life more than Republican.

However I am an alcoholic and every since I was young I always felt different. I remember my first drink like many remember their first kiss. It was magic. I had found my soulmate. No doubt in my mind. From the moment I was born I was destined to find alcohol. Studies indicate it is genetic. Maybe it is some kind of birth defect. Whatever it is, I have no doubt I had it from the time I was born.

And yet God delivered me from that for over 19 years now. Blessed be the name of the Lord. And if He can do it for a drunk like me He can do it for someone who is gay too. Our God is an awesome God.

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert:

Written into the laws of some of the United states are definations of sodomy that include oral sex.

[there buster]

For Jeannieb43, Bravus, and anyone else who wants to know:

I've started another thread "Biblical literalism or Biblical Literacy" for the discussion of literal vs. symbolic interpretation.

Jeannieb43 specifically asked for such a notice.

[Jeannieb43]

Thank you, Ed.

I'd been watching for just such a thread. I'll go there now.

[Jeannieb43]

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

From the moment I was born I was destined to find alcohol. Studies indicate it is genetic.

And if He can do it for a drunk like me He can do it for someone who is gay too.

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

Shane, it isn't God who predestines anyone to be gay... or an alcoholic.... It's sin. And Satan is the author of sin.

Now, I know several gays and several alcoholics personally. Most of them are abstinent. I don't know how much daily moral strength they expend in staying abstinent... but I know it's by God's grace that they do so.

--Something like others of us who are genetically gifted with more fat cells than the average! We have to work very hard to keep those fat cells empty!! It's only by continual communion with God and by the support of our friends who are making the same commitment that we keep this genetic predisposition under control.

[philo]

First I had the therads contributions printed out, then on two Sabbath afternoosn I was reconsidering. - So, please excuse : No quotations, I just registerded every contribution.

Well, we are the better Adventists here : W e also dont bear tattoos (Lev. 19 :28, . Deut 14, 1)- I have learned that in a time only sailors and jail prisoners were tattoed, yet its not even in the Church Manual.....

Sorry to say , ladies here even in church wear jeans or slacks, yet Deut 22 : 5 states very clear that God is against unisex clothes and is for a clear gender distinction. (Did I remember correctly that a long time ago the "Youth Instructor" answered a question about the matter with the wise agument, that no real man would wear ladies jeans, so they clearly are ladies wear and not mens wear ?) - - Alongside to commentators explanations my exeprience tells me just that transvestites and fetishists (nonono, not our ladies in ladies jeans or slacks !) are just a threat to society. I approve that the police keeps those registered who were caught with one or the other just for checking their alibi something worse occurs. And this or that person is n o t going to lead MV activities, albeit I will not judge or condemn.

The OT just describes homosexual acts or actions : The Sodomites (Gen 19) were licentious, lawless rakes , but no "homosexuals" - else the idea of Abraham offering them his two virgin daughters instead would have been a poor strategy. The same situation we find in Gibea (Judges 19) : Verse 25 tells a horrible detail, that clearly excludes "genuine homosexuals".

In early days already being confronted with the "homosexual" problem I believe that there is something , an "inborn error of patterns" , that makes some (literature speaks of 4 % of the population ) being genuine homosexuals . The last german SDA publication (Hochschulschriften 2, Institut für Seelsorge und Psychologie der Theologischen Hochschule Friedensau, Wuppertal 1997) was witheld until the results about chromosome Xq28 were sound to be published. The opposite - - an example for the "Normal inborn pattern" is Austrian Worls Ski Cup Winner Erki(a) Schinegger, recently on the TV screen : The newborn was found to be a girl, raised as a girl, the adolescent at once feeling attracted to girls (and with the fear of being a lesbian ! !), winning in the Ladies team - an then in an exam revealed as being a man. He after some painful surgery got it to build up a new life as a man, husband and father.

We with care and love and compassion have to guide the "genuine homosexual" - as I see it - to a life of chastity and be forgiving wehen he fails in this attempt. We must be aware that we "normals" easily can speak about carrying a tough burden we (usually) dont havev to bear. We - the society and the SDA Church - also demanded such a life from the countless number of soldiers widows after WW II and the generation of women born in the twneties who never had the chance of getting a spouse. To quote just some Bible texts and the books of Nicolosi just is not christlike -

and fails reality. (Funny detail : A retired minister went throug our churches preaching against "homosexuality", going from Matth 11 : 23 to Gen 19 and the to Plato and Paul: He afterwards had to admit never in his career getting acquainted with a "homosexual" - - and a number of congregations had been very thankful for his clear words of condemnation and easy solutions).

If you read Platons "Symposion" , you will find "homosexuality" as a conduct fostered, cultivated and appraised. If you read Martial ( 40 - 100 a.C.) Epigrammata - satirical remarks on Roman UpperClass, you will find that in superfluent luxury, leisuretime, pleasureseeking, sensationseeking (some) Romans had their one nigth stands or affairs or realtionships men with men, men with women, women with women, men with slaves - - - and Martial made good business with his writings, joking about the latest affairs just encrypting the names.

So Paul just knew to whom he adressed his writings and the arsenokoitai and malakoi knew they were meant.

Neither the Sodomites nor the Gibeans nor the Athenians nor the Romans were a buch of "genuine homosexuals" - they just were lewd and lawless and licentious and acted responsibly by their own will. This also could fit for some of nowadays vacation spots in the Mediterraneans and the Caribic.

A Christian Church should be aware of the burdens some have to bear, say a strict "no" to licentiousness, and say the same strict "no" to condemning issues that are not carefully scrutinized and evaluated.

Cheers, blessings

[Bravus]

Excellent, balanced, thoughtful post, philo. Thank you.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

A Christian Church should be aware of the burdens some have to bear, say a strict "no" to licentiousness, and say the same strict "no" to condemning issues that are not carefully scrutinized and evaluated.

---

Well done post, Philo. Thanks for bringing some sanity to this thread.

Amen. The biggest cross We the Church have to bear is a massive peanut gallery full of themselves who think they have the ultimate final word on all matters of sin. Usually someone ELSE's sin, of course. And they can't rest till they've once more paraded their wanton ignorance for all the world to associate with our Elder Brother and the rest of us. Rather than studying the ramifications of real human issues as they exist in genetic or biological configurations and what that means, they think that a glib (and usually SCREAMED) retort solves the matter. To which I say fair enough -- if it solves it for them, let them be satisfied of THEIR life course -- and shut up about anyone else's. (That's a PERIOD at the end of that sentence, NOT a semicolon.)

Sigh. How long, O Lord, how long?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Springett, Ronald, M. HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORY AND THE SCRIPTURES: SOME HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOMOSEXUALITY. Biblical Research Institute, 1988, 173 pages.

---

I have this book. Got it at campmeeting at the ABC. Haven't read it yet though.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

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?

---

It doesn't depend on that. This is making salvation out to be dependent upon whether we sin or not. We all sin. What matters is whether we come to Jesus or not.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

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?

---

Probably a good 95% of it, if not more.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, that's simply humans being petty twits who constantly think themselves better than someone -- ANYONE -- else they can point a finger of condemnation at. It should NEVER be legitimized as just desserts, and those types will NOT be in heaven any more than the harlot or adulteress they despise, unless THEY likewise REPENT as well.

And it's high time they learned it, too, and stopped making others miserable in this world with their wagging tongues and pointing fingers and mincing, prancing, gossipy games.

I agree, like the child who sasses and loses dessert, there is punishment in the consequence of sin. I just don't agree with legitimizing assinine behavior on the part of smug, self-righteous finger-waggers by assigning them that noble role reserved for Time and Experience and Cause and Effect alone. As Jesus said, "It must be that offenses come into this world, but woe to them through whom they come." That villager-with-torches ilk would do well to pay some heed to that verse, as would their defenders.

[Nicodema]

Sorry for all the posts -- that's what I get for posting at 2:30-3:00 a.m. I'll shuddup now.