The "real" sin of Sodom

[teresaq]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit uses Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventists, in these last days, to help convict the world of sin through the preaching and teaching of the Word?

[John317]

There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.

I'm familiar with this idea. It is found in many homosexual publications.

But there's no evidence for this except that the Bible says David and Jonathan loved each other. There's no evidence that it's talking about sexual love.

What's your best case for saying it's a biblical example of same-sex love?

Let's assume, though, for the sake of discussion, that David and Jonathan had sex together. Would that show that it is not sinful? Of course it wouldn't. Even if John the Baptist & Saint Paul had sex together, it wouldn't make it right. All it would prove it that they were sinful humans in need of a Savior, which, of course, we're well aware of already.

[abelisle]

I agree that there's no evidence of this implying sexual love.

I'm curious why same-sex "love" without sexual activities is sinful?

What separates homosexuals who don't have sex from heterosexuals who have a strong love for someone of the same sex? This is my working definition of same-sex love.

I'm not trying to prove a Biblical point as much as I am trying to figure the "whys"?

Alex

[teresaq]

Quote:

abelisle:

I think your question is deserving of a separate thread in and of itself.

But I am interested in knowing if the argument is being made on this thread that the practice of homosexuality was not even included among the sins that brought down the wrath of God on Sodom.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: abelisle

There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.

What's your best case for saying it's a biblical example of same-sex love?

given that they are both males?

there are some women i highly esteem and adore. i think since we are both females that would fall under "same-sex" love. tho our homophobic society makes it uncomfortable to put it that way.

[Dr. Shane]

What separates homosexuals who don't have sex from heterosexuals who have a strong love for someone of the same sex?

I think we are playing with semantics and it is a game that no one wins. John isn't saying it is sinful for one man to love another. The Apostle John was the beloved disciple but Jesus never had sex with him. One man can love another. If there is no sex going on between them it is not a gay or homosexual relationship.

[abelisle]

Originally Posted By: abelisle

What separates homosexuals who don't have sex from heterosexuals who have a strong love for someone of the same sex?

I think we are playing with semantics and it is a game that no one wins. John isn't saying it is sinful for one man to love another. The Apostle John was the beloved disciple but Jesus never had sex with him. One man can love another. If there is no sex going on between them it is not a gay or homosexual relationship.

But this is at the heart of the issue. You're implying that homosexuals must have sex to be defined as a homosexual. John has just said that he defines himself as being a homosexual but he doesn't have sex.

This isn't about playing a game. This is an effort to find out why some people feel that committed monogamous homosexuals who aren't having sex are still considered to be sinful. Why?

Alex

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle: I agree that there's no evidence of this implying sexual love.

Oh ok. It's very common for gays to say that David and Jonathan had gay sex because that's what they read so often in gay literature. I honestly don't think that they had sex together. I believe their love was deep but was of a platonic nature rather than physical or sexual.

Quote:

I'm curious why same-sex "love" without sexual activities is sinful?

Depends on what you mean by "love." It also depends on the gay person. Not all have the same feelings about those things. There are different types of gays.

But to answer you directly, I don't believe that it's wrong for two men or two women to "love" each other. It sounds like you're talking about the "friendship" kind of love or platonic love. That happens often among gays, but usually between the same types of gays.

I have "straight" male friends that I care very much about, but because I'm so close to the time when I loved men in a sexual way, I have to still separate my feelings for these other men from the way I used to feel. So I haven't yet come to the point where I can tell myself "I love him." It's more, "I like him very much as a friend," or more often now, "as a brother in Christ." That's where I have to keep it. I guess I'm afraid of those thoughts and words still, "I love him." But I do care very deeply about some of the men I know without having any sexual or romantic desires whatsoever.

But that is a different kind of love. When a gay male (not a female) "loves" someone of their own sex,-- particularly if you're referring to romantic love-- it more frequently involves something sexual. Of course there can also be non-sexual/non-romantic love between members of either sex for each other. But my experience is that gay males have a difficult time "loving" another male without some kind of romantic feelings getting involved even if they don't want them to, unless they are like "sisters," etc.

Quote:

What separates homosexuals who don't have sex from heterosexuals who have a strong love for someone of the same sex? This is my working definition of same-sex love.

I'm not exactly sure because I was never heterosexual.

Two homosexual male friends who don't have sex may be like two girl friends. Or they could be like a man and wife who no longer have sexual relations. They also might be just two opposites who don't find each other sexually attractive. Gays often don't find other men sexually attractive, so it's not unusual for gays to "love" each other as good friends without having any sexual relations at all.

Quote:

I'm not trying to prove a Biblical point as much as I am trying to figure the "whys"?

Yeah, lots to figure out there, for sure. Hope I helped a little bit anyway.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This is an effort to find out why some people feel that committed monogamous homosexuals who aren't having sex are still considered to be sinful.

That's a non sequitor. If a homosexual is monogamous, he/she is having sex.

Quote:

Monogamy is the state of having only one sexual partner at any one time. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos "μονός", which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos "γάμος", which means marriage or union. In many cases, the word "monogamy" is used to specifically refer to marital monogamy.

Social monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who live together, have sex with each other, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money.

Sexual monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who remain sexually exclusive with each other and have no outside sex partners.

Genetic monogamy refers to two partners that only have offspring with each other.

Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.

[John317]

John isn't saying it is sinful for one man to love another. The Apostle John was the beloved disciple but Jesus never had sex with him. One man can love another. If there is no sex going on between them it is not a gay or homosexual relationship.

Yes, this is right. In fact, it's important for gays who are trying to overcome homosexual practices to have non-sexual/non-romantic relationships with men. It's very much encouraged and a part of their therapy.

[John317]

...This is an effort to find out why some people feel that committed monogamous homosexuals who aren't having sex are still considered to be sinful. Why?

I don't think there's any such thing. I agree with rudywoofs on this.

Virtually all committed monogamous homosexuals have sexual relations-- perhaps with the exception of those who have been together so long that they no longer have sexual desire for each other, which does happen. But all the ones I knew like that had agreements with each other that they could "play around."

It may come as a shock to you, but many gays who are in "committed, monogamous" relationships "play around" yet they can do it and still convince themselves they're "monogamous" because those other things are so fleeting and unemotional that no one takes them seriously.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit uses Christians, particularly Seventh-day Adventists, in these last days, to help convict the world of sin through the preaching and teaching of the Word?

....But it would certainly be a mistake to give homosexuals the impression that the sins of Sodom did not include the practice of homosexuality. When those in the church speak as if homosexual practices were not among the sins which brought down God's wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah, whether they know it or not, they provide some people encouragment to believe homosexuality is not a sin, and thus they are helping spread the very sins that Ellen White and the apostle Peter were inspired of God to warn us against. Homosexuals need the message that it's a sin to practice homosexuality and that God has the power to help them resist and overcome ALL sin in their lives. This is the message God wants Seventh-day Adventists to give to all the world-- and that includes the millions of gay people whom God loves and wants to save.

I'm a gay person and would still be practicing these very sins today if it weren't for my personal study of this subject and the decision to allow God to change my desires.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): there are people who will be convicted of what sin is and those who will not. and if they choose not to be convicted we cannot shove it down them harder and harder.

it is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin. it is not our job to help Him no matter how well-meaning we might be.

What's your point in posting this, teresaq (sda)? So far, all you've done above is copy and post the same things that were posted before.

Don't assume that people are going to guess your meaning. If you can't write and tell people straightforwardly what you mean in clear language, don't expect people to spend time analyzing your posts to find out what you might mean. If that's the kind of reading I want to do, where I need to spend some time figuring out what they mean, then I take to writers I love like Henry James, James Joyce, or Virginia Woolf. On the forum I like straight writing.

Here on this thread, then, I'm NOT talking to you about people who choose not to be convicted. I'm talking about people who may be convicted by the truth if only they hear it or read it CLEARLY; but we can be sure they won't hear the truth and be convicted of it if Christians tell them that homosexual practices are perfectly OK.

No one is-- & least of all am I-- talking about shoving anything down any gay person "harder and harder." But then this isn't a discussion about how to communicate the gospel to gay people. That'd be an excellent subject but one that must be left for another thread.

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle: There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: What's your best case for saying it's a biblical example of same-sex love?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): given that they are both males?

Of course two males can love each other in a non-sexual way. But when people talk about the "same-sex love between David and Jonathan," they almost always have something else in mind besides heterosexual love.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): there are some women i highly esteem and adore. i think since we are both females that would fall under "same-sex" love. tho our homophobic society makes it uncomfortable to put it that way.

I don't think women have a problem with saying they adore other women without any sexual desires involved. Women are much freer in our society to openly express love and affection for each other without anything negative being attached to it; men are much less able to do that. For instance, if I say to a bunch of guys, "You know, I just adore that man ...," the reactions would be quite different than if they were to hear a woman say the same thing about another woman.

Our society is homophobic, yes, but I don't pay it any mind.

[Bravus]

Our problem is simple: gay sex is just more *interesting* than poor people

[Gerr]

The real sins of Sodom included the practice of homosexuality, all kinds of immorality, as well as all the sins described in Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.

AMEN! John.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Let me ask you a question(s). Is homosexuality "nature" or "nurture?" And if it is "nature" how stridently do we expect them to change, for them, their normal sexual tendencies? Will only non-practicing homosexuals be saved?

Alex

I'm not John, but I'll put in my 2 cents. Isaiah says we are ALL sick, from head to toe there is no soundness in us. Sin of every species has become part of us, whether by genes or epigenetics I believe is beside the point. It is still sin. My own sinful nature desires every beautiful woman. If this is inborn in me, am I then free to give it expression?

[Gerr]

Quote:

There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.

If you mean this includes same sex coitus, would you please provide the book, chapter, and verse, to support your statement? Thanks.

[abelisle]

Quote:

There is even a Biblical example of same-sex love with David and Jonathan.

If you mean this includes same sex coitus, would you please provide the book, chapter, and verse, to support your statement? Thanks.

Obviously you haven't read all the previous posts. This question has been answered already.

Alex (sex as in gender, not coitus)

[Gerr]

Well, then, their love falls under the same category of love that Jesus commanded for His disciples to have - "love one another..."

[Dr. Shane]

If there is no sex going on between them it is not a gay or homosexual relationship.

You're implying that homosexuals must have sex to be defined as a homosexual.

[Dr. Shane]

So I haven't yet come to the point where I can tell myself "I love him." It's more, "I like him very much as a friend," or more often now, "as a brother in Christ." That's where I have to keep it.

I respect that. Although I love many people here at C/A, including you, John. I define love with two basic words: commitment and acceptance. Commitment is characterized as looking out for another's well-being. Acceptance means the commitment is unconditional.

[John317]

Quote:

Shane: Although I love many people here at C/A, including you, John. I define love with two basic words: commitment and acceptance. Commitment is characterized as looking out for another's well-being. Acceptance means the commitment is unconditional.

That's one of the best and nicest things I've seen on the Forum in a long, long time. Thanks for that, Shane.

[Tom Wetmore]

Our problem is simple: gay sex is just more *interesting* than poor people

Sadly, the poor get pushed aside and forgotten once again...

The devil's strategy wins once again...

[Tom Wetmore]

More people die from being poor than from being gay.

We can fix the problems of poverty easier than we can fix homosexuality...

Most of us struggle with arrogance, greed, and avoiding helping the poor.

Very few of us struggle with homosexuality.

The sin of Sodom has shown itself to reign supreme here because we have successfully changed the subject so we don't have to think about caring for the poor...

[doug yowell]

More people die from being poor than from being gay.

We can fix the problems of poverty easier than we can fix homosexuality...

Most of us struggle with arrogance, greed, and avoiding helping the poor.

Very few of us struggle with homosexuality.

The sin of Sodom has shown itself to reign supreme here because we have successfully changed the subject so we don't have to think about caring for the poor...

Jesus said ,"You have the poor with you always".Doesn't sound like a easier fix to me. And like I said before, the conservative Christian community has been attempting to relieve the suffering on the poor for decades (centuries?) so why was this op/ed entitled The Real Sin of Sodom? Where's the connect?