Leaderboard

Earlier Bravus posted a link kto a copy of an article that he co-authored. That link charges $43.00 to access. The following link provides free access to that article. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f15/5b3b8a3830246d4e9f39911a93116f818478.pdf

The most important thing that I want all to when I present the evidence that I give, is to please check it out yourself! Here is some source I will aid you with. Let's start with the Bible: ELOHIYM shall enlarge* Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. Gen 9:27 *This word is not what actually means, please look it up! Blessings for Obedience is the subtitle of Deut 28:1-14 I would suggest all to read it. Then the subtitle for Deut 15-68 is Curses for Disobedience. Also: Then answered all the people, and said, HIS BLOOD be on us, and on our children. Matt 27:25 Here are historical facts: The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October n Nature Communications. While the Jewish religion began in the Near East, and the Ashkenazi Jews were believed to have origins in the early indigenous tribes of this region, new evidence from mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on exclusively from mother to child, suggests that female ancestors of most modern Ashkenazi Jews converted to Judaism in the north Mediterranean around 2,000 years ago and later in west and central Europe. The new findings contradict previous assertions that Ashkenazi mitochondrial lineages originated in the Near East, or from mass conversions to Judaism in the Khazar kingdom, an empire in the north Caucasus region between Europe and Asia lasting from the 7th century to the 11th century whose leaders adopted Judaism. “We found that most of the maternal lineages don’t trace to the north Caucasus, which would be a proxy for the Khazarians, or to the Near East, but most of them emanate from Europe,” said co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist at the University of Huddersfield in the U.K. 2019 THE SCIENTIST The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia, many of whom converted to Judaism. The name 'Khazar' seems to be tied to a Turkic verb form meaning "wandering" ('gezer' in modern Turkish). In the 7th century CE, they founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea, where over time Judaism became the state religion. At their height, they and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, large portions of the Caucasus (including Dagestan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), and the Crimea. Wikipedia Selection for schools (UK) "Khazar, an ancient Turkic-speaking people who ruled a large and powerful state in the steppes North of the Caucasus Mountains from the 7th century to their demise in the mid-11th century A. D. ...In the 8th Century it's political and religious head...as well as the greater part of the Khazar nobility abandoned paganism and converted to Judaism...(The Khazars are believed to be the ancestors of most Russian and Eastern European Jews)." Encyclopedia Americana "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS INCORRECT TO CALL AN ANCIENT ISRAELITE A ‘JEW’ OR TO CALL A CONTEMPORARY JEW AN ISRAELITE OR A HEBREW." (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3). "KHAZARS, A NON-SEMITIC, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of Yiddish-speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Bessarabia and Rumania." The Jewish Encyclopedia However, his successor Nabonidus was defeated by the Persian king Cyrus the Great (539), who allowed the exiled Jews to return home (texts). But many of them preferred to stay in wealthy Babylonia and refused to go home. This was the beginning of the Jewish community of Iraq and Iran, which existed until very recently. A second impulse for the Jews to go abroad was the foundation of Alexandria in Egypt by Alexander the Great (331 BCE). Under the next Egyptian kings, the Ptolemies, Jewish mercenaries and merchants settled in the capital of the country along the Nile. Several other communities in the Ptolemaean empire are known: e.g., at Pelusium, Leontopolis, and Cyrene. According to Philo, a Jewish author from the early first century CE, about a million Jews were living in Egypt. They spoke Greek; therefore, the Bible was translated (the Septuagint). In many diasporic communities, this text was to become more authoritative than the Hebrew text. Judaea was a province of the Ptolemaic Empire until 200; in that year, the Seleucid kings of Syria conquered the land of Israel. During the next generation, we find Jews in several towns in the Seleucid Empire: e.g., Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, and Antioch. The Jews were now part of a larger world, and it comes as no surprise to read about a community in Rome in the 160s. Diaspora; Livius.org Articles on ancient history. This is just a few sources, there are many and it would do all good to check out history it is important. Blessings!

Yes, they wanted to rape men, but they were given the option of having women. And they chose to do whatever their wicked hearts wanted. So, they chose homosexual rape over heterosexual rape. Many other references in the Bible to Sodom referred not to rape situations, but to possibly male temple prostitutes. You cannot exclude men who only engaged in non-violent male-male relationships from also being referred to as Sodomites. Beyond that, I do not believe I will really discuss these verses as to fully discuss them would result in Adventistan not being a "family safe" website. It starts to get that bad. One other thing which continues to get proffered up regarding this is that men have no choice but are born that way. I disagree completely. Even if true, that does not excuse it. Babies will steal from one another from a very young age (Ever see one of those cute Youtube videos where a baby stoled a pacifier out of another babies mouth?!) If such a child continued to steal, would the church just say, "He was born that way, so it must be acceptable to God." I think not, but then the way things are going, maybe! It is well known that many gay men were molested as young boys (minors) when they were unable to give legal consent. Technically, they were statutorily raped. I would mention that years ago, the International League of Gays and Lesbians had as a charter member the organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association, but those meany conservatives in congress threatened to suspend UN funding unless they dropped the pedophile organizations from their league! (Can you believe it? The UN was funding these people!) And explain to me why the gay organizations are fighting so hard to get the age of consent for boys down to 16. One of the mottos is to get them young so they remain in the community. (And then convince them that they are born gay!) There are times in life when certain events fixate people in certain directions. But to convince someone they were born that way and God approves of them being gay because of that, is doing a severe injury to one already injured. I have no doubt the offenders will have to give an account for it in the judgement.

Rather convenient to exclude the main story that actually recorded the behavior of men toward men (angels who appeared as men) and their eventual destruction. This story did become a frequently used example of wicked men all through out the Bible and their behavior was also discussed as an example in the Bible. I suspicion we can twist into all kinds of shapes to prove a certain text did or didn't say something, but I also tend to think that is how the world and the church will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. Reminds me of a book by Robert Bork that he called "Slouching Towards Gomorrah."

I do not want to side-track this discussion began by Bavus. I consider it to be of value and I am delighted that he has begun it. But, I will make a couple of comments, that that may not be related to each other. The SDA denomination has published on this issue,, for informational purposes, I will cite a couple of those publications. Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures, was probably the first major publication. It was authored by a conservative professor in the Religion Department of Southern. From this perspective it can not be considered to be a liberal publication. It was first published about 1980 (I have not checked.) and was 164 pages in length. Its 1999 edition was 183 pages in length. It was groundbreaking in part due to the fact that Springett argued that several of the Biblical verses commonly used against homosexuality were improperly used. To be clear, he supported the common usage of other Biblical verses. I will say that this is important. If someone argues that a specific verse should not be used as it has been used in the past, that does not mean that one is taking an overall position on homosexuality. In addition, I believe that this book is of value in that it alerted me to the fact that the meaning of the word “homosexual” is defined differently by people who use the word. This is important in that sometimes in our conversations we simply are talking over the head of the other and the communication is not based upon a common understanding. In 2012 Andrews University published a the 578 page book: Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling and Religious Liberty Issues. It has about 17 different authors. While I do not consider everything to be of value, It has much of value. This includes how we treat people and that homosexuals are God’s children and loved by God. It addresses a large number of issues. As a personal statement: I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. I did not chose to be a heterosexual. I do not believe that one choses to be a homosexual. I am firmly committed to this position. In my understanding, homosexuality is not defined by activity. Rather, it is defined by gender preference. So in my understanding, a celibate homosexual remains a homosexual. Now back to looking at the Biblical verses.

We should probably also stipulate that, for most people, it is same-sex sexual activity that constitutes sin, not same-sex attraction. Presumably many would consider that attraction should be repressed and hopefully conquered, but that the attraction itself is not sinful. Except, I suppose, in the same sense that Jesus says to straight men "If you look at a woman with lust (i.e. in a way that sees her as an object rather than a person), you have already committed adultery".

Yes, all struggle with sin, (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: – 1 John 2:1). That is the struggle that one seeking to follow God goes through. But some things should be put away before membership occurs. But that is not what I brought up. It is the church endorsing and calling evil good which is my concern. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20 I am finding thru the Testimonies how intricately sin winds itself into the character of one struggling to be free of it. I am also finding thru Old Testament studies just how fast and easily Israel slid into wickedness seemingly sooner that the previous righteous judge or king could cool off in his grave and the parallels between the backsliddings of Israel and the church today to be astonishing. There is a huge difference between one trying to be free of sin and failing on one hand and people being led into sin on the other by leaders of the church. And you cannot justify one sin with another sin on the part of someone else.

It’s all good Bravus and you’re right about my assumption that the reason was for hooking up. I admit that’s not the sole purpose of everyone there and I retract that statement.

Some of you may know the name David Larson as one of the ones who support accepting of SDAKinship and their ideas. https://www.sdakinship.org/120-about/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-en/837-what-does-the-bible-say I was in one of his classes ~40 years ago at Loma Linda and even then, this topic took up a significant part of class time. And we had to write papers. I recently came across my paper I had written and my conclusion in that paper was pretty much what I wrote in the above quote.

Oh, I know that "drag" didn't mean anything relative to the thread. Just a funny coincidence! I have just found language and use of words to be a lot more interesting in the last couple of years than they did for much of my life.