Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[CoAspen]

You gave it a good fight, Bravus.

[JoeMo]

"And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. ⁷ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7)

It is possible to infer from these verses - taken together - that Jude is referring to the issue discussed in Genesis 6:4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward [like after the flood in Sodom and Gomorrah?]—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

I DO think this refers to people having sex with angels; and angels are indeed "strange flesh" compared to humans.  That was the reason God sent the flood in the first place - to eliminate this hybrid race before it could destroy the pure humanity created by God.

If Sodom and Gomorrah were so full of homosexuals, why would the whole city go after these angels?  They could have all the gay sex they wanted already; so what was special about these guys?  They were ANGELS, that's what made them special and desirable.

Not saying I'm right; just saying it's feasible.

[Kevin H]

Pickle, all I'm doing on this thread is sharing things that I've heard about that our leaders are dealing with. I am interested in this topic in the fields of being fair to what the Bible says and does not say and encouraging us to follow the Bible and not read into the Bible ideas that are not there but are tradition. And how this affects how we treat the humans who are struggling with this issue. As I have said before I will let the theologians fight it out, I have enough temptations in my own life that I have to focus on without getting sidetracked by an issue that is not a part of my life.

However it's hard to share what the issues of the current debate are when you don't want to look at the evidence and want to plug your ears even to the theologians who are on your side because they agree that the Bible is talking about something else in these passages. The issue is do you want to remain ignorantly bliss in your own little shell, or do you want to know what is being discussed and what our leaders are looking at in trying to make a decision? Do you want to listen to the evidence so that you can make up your mind or do you want to live with the idea that your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the evidence or facts.

If we are taking these verses out of context should we not be aware of it? Or is it only Sunday keepers who need to learn that their cherished beliefs come from reading tradition into their texts and taking the text out of context. Why are they at risk of being lost for taking the Bible out of context and following how they traditionally interpret the verses, but we are fitted for heaven by doing these things? Why is it Satan who is deceiving them by reading their favorite ideas into their verses, but when we do the same thing it's not from Satan?

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin H:  Amen.

[Pickle]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Pickle, all I'm doing on this thread is sharing things that I've heard about that our leaders are dealing with. I am interested in this topic in the fields of being fair to what the Bible says and does not say and encouraging us to follow the Bible and not read into the Bible ideas that are not there but are tradition. And how this affects how we treat the humans who are struggling with this issue. As I have said before I will let the theologians fight it out, I have enough temptations in my own life that I have to focus on without getting sidetracked by an issue that is not a part of my life.

However it's hard to share what the issues of the current debate are when you don't want to look at the evidence and want to plug your ears even to the theologians who are on your side because they agree that the Bible is talking about something else in these passages. The issue is do you want to remain ignorantly bliss in your own little shell, or do you want to know what is being discussed and what our leaders are looking at in trying to make a decision? Do you want to listen to the evidence so that you can make up your mind or do you want to live with the idea that your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by the evidence or facts.

If we are taking these verses out of context should we not be aware of it? Or is it only Sunday keepers who need to learn that their cherished beliefs come from reading tradition into their texts and taking the text out of context. Why are they at risk of being lost for taking the Bible out of context and following how they traditionally interpret the verses, but we are fitted for heaven by doing these things? Why is it Satan who is deceiving them by reading their favorite ideas into their verses, but when we do the same thing it's not from Satan?

But Kevin, you are sounding inconsistent. If you don't want to read into the Bible ideas that aren't there, then you can't just uncritically swallow what any scholar says about the supposed background of this or that passage, because doing so may very well result in reading into a passage something that isn't there. And what the professor said about cross dressing is one example.

If you wanted to find a prostitute, you went to the temple. One could therefore conclude that prostitution is fine today if the reason why God forbade something had only to do with false worship.

Rather, I think what was going on was that Satan used false religious beliefs to lead people to do things that inside they felt were wrong.

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Is there any evidence fallen angels are ever referred to as "sons of God"?

The biggie is Job 1:6 - "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."

I believe that satan could be considered a fallen angel; so there may have been others as well.

[Pickle]

44 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

The biggie is Job 1:6 - "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."

I believe that satan could be considered a fallen angel; so there may have been others as well.

I don't see any indication in Genesis that the Sodomites knew that the men were angels.

Regarding this whole issue, start with Gen. 3:15, which says that God would put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Then consider that Gen. 4 illustrates that enmity, and that 1 John says that Cain was of the wicked one in contrast to being born of God. We therefore can have the same meaning in Genesis for "sons of God" as we have in 1 John.

Genesis 4:26  ... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

It has been said that this can be translated, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord," and thus it is saying that that is when the term "sons of God" began to be used. The verse after the very next verse after the genealogies speaks of the sons of God.

Jesus was quite clear that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. It's a very old idea that men and angels crossed, and is found in the Book of Enoch. But biblical support is lacking.

[JoeMo]

Hey Pickle,

Genesis doesn't say that the Sodomites "didn't" know they were angels, either.  Satan has been on a rampage since the announcement in Gen 3:15 to destroy the seed of the woman.  I propose the possibility that satan's first attempt at doing this could have been to contaminate the human genome to the point that Jesus could no longer come in human flesh; or that these "super humans" would wipe out pure humanity.  It is possible that the Greek, Roman, and Celtic gods; as well of the gods of other Middle Eastern cultures have their basis in the Nephilim.  There are even "mythological" stories about mighty men who were the results of gods impregnating women (e.g., Hercules).

Just cuz angels don't marry doesn't mean they can't have sex.  I know lots of humans that will never marry who have very active sex lives.

I subscribe to a principle known as Acham's Razor, with which I'm sure a guy like you is familiar.  It basically states that the most simple explanation of something is usually the correct one.  If I had never heard of the Bible or Jesus before and inadvertently picked one up and read it, I would infer that early in human existence, humans were having sex with supernatural beings. 

[Pickle]

Tom,

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

I must conclude, then, that you believe that the same Hebrew word here, used just 37 verses earlier than the verse you are referring to, is inclusive of all people, not just males, and that therefore Abraham engaged in female circumcision. Otherwise, if you allow for 'enowsh to be just males in Gen. 17:27, you have to allow for it to be just males in 19:4.

I can see how one might argue that "every male among the men" in 17:23 shows that "men" must be inclusive of both genders. Still, vs. 27 says that "all the men" were circumcised, and thus "men" in vs. 27 is not being used to include both genders.

One might also argue that "men" in Gen. 19:5, 8 is inclusive, and thus that the angels (or one of them) actually looked like women. But I think that we can find enough verbs with masculine endings within Gen. 19 to show that these visitors appeared as men, not women. Plus, we have Lot in 19:2 calling the two 'enowsh "my lords," and I doubt you would say that Lot was calling a woman "my lord," even out of respect or hospitality.

[Pickle]

2 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Genesis doesn't say that the Sodomites "didn't" know they were angels, either.

Sure it does. The story clearly says they were angels, and just as clearly says that the Sodomites thought they were men.

4 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

It is possible that the Greek, Roman, and Celtic gods; as well of the gods of other Middle Eastern cultures have their basis in the Nephilim.  There are even "mythological" stories about mighty men who were the results of gods impregnating women (e.g., Hercules).

 

It is just as possible, or more so, to conclude that these myths were Satan's counterfeit of the virgin birth. Doesn't gods impregnating women, and that's how the sun god Hercules came to be, sound like a counterfeit of the virgin birth?

Another simple conclusion is that these myths are a corrupted record of ancient scientific genetic engineering. After all, in the book of Enoch, the crossing resulted in giants that ate a lot. People had to feed these giants, and once they ran out of food, the giants started eating people. And that was one of the reasons for the Flood. To me that account sounds like a corrupted version of: Before the Flood the scientists discovered ways to tamper with the genome, and they concocted dinosaurs to use in sport and/or war. The T. rexes ate a lot, and even ate people. And as Genesis puts it, since "all flesh," not just mankind, had corrupted its way upon the earth, God wiped it all out with the Flood.

If you had read Gen. 6 for the first time in light of 1 John, without picking up any ideas from anywhere else, you would not assume that the sons of God of Gen. 6 were angels.

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Pickle said:

But Kevin, you are sounding inconsistent. If you don't want to read into the Bible ideas that aren't there, then you can't just uncritically swallow what any scholar says about the supposed background of this or that passage, because doing so may very well result in reading into a passage something that isn't there. And what the professor said about cross dressing is one example.

If you wanted to find a prostitute, you went to the temple. One could therefore conclude that prostitution is fine today if the reason why God forbade something had only to do with false worship.

Rather, I think what was going on was that Satan used false religious beliefs to lead people to do things that inside they felt were wrong.

True, not any scholar, but when it is scholar after scholar, liberal, moderate and conservative there might be something to it. And they way that you are able to get the ideas that the Bible is trying to give us is by learning the background: Literary structures, culture, geography etc.

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

True, not any scholar, but when it is scholar after scholar, liberal, moderate and conservative there might be something to it. And they way that you are able to get the ideas that the Bible is trying to give us is by learning the background: Literary structures, culture, geography etc.

"Might be" are the key words.

Still, I have never heard of any archaeological records documenting the beliefs of the people of Sodom, beliefs along the lines that you claimed. I highly doubt that any scholar, conservative or liberal or in between, has identified any such records of Sodom.

[Robert]

On 3/30/2016 at 0:37 PM, Kevin H said:

With Paul talking abut how being absent from this body and being present with the Lord, and the Parable of the Richman and Lazarus  I am dumbfounded by the amount of energy that Seventh-day Adventist use to say that the dead don't go to heaven or hell at death. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

Perhaps if SDA showed how these false doctrines attack the gospel then maybe these other denominations would listen. Nevertheless, this is a non-official SDA forum so I would think that homosexuality wouldn't be a contentious topic here among primarily SDA. 

 

[JoeMo]

6 minutes ago, Pickle said:

I have never heard of any archaeological records documenting the beliefs of the people of Sodom

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible for which there is no archeological record.  That doesn't mean that those events aren't true.  The reverse is also true.

[Pickle]

1 minute ago, JoeMo said:

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible for which there is no archeological record.  That doesn't mean that those events aren't true.  The reverse is also true.

But that's not the issue, as I recall it. Kevin H. stated it as fact that the Sodomites believed such and such. He didn't state it as hypothetical, as I recall. He was stating things as fact that aren't recorded in the Bible.

[Pickle]

And since I am to leave on a trip, I will unfollow this thread, which is likely a bad time to do that, but it needs to happen at some point.

[Robert]

On 3/30/2016 at 10:34 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

The message of Isaiah in this passage is very much consistent with the statement of Ezekiel of what the sin of Sodom really was that marked them for destruction...It is about the oppression of the poor.

I would have to disagree.  Being oppressed by those in power doesn't, of itself, cause God abandonment.  The reason God abandons is always the same; He is persistently rejected.  Practiced and justified sin is the result of ungodliness. Romans chapter 1 is very clear on this point:

24 Therefore God gave them up in (abandoned them to) the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

[LifeHiscost]

27

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet...... Romans 1

 

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;⁶ Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;.... 1 Corinthians 13

A person who loves Jesus and is a follower of Him would seem to be uncomfortable practicing the "unseemly"....

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

 

[CoAspen]

I would also say Mr Pickle doesn't read posts very well....assumptions and preconceived opinions,when combined with blinders, can lead to unwarranted conclusions.

[GayatfootofCross]

4 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Kevin, you don't think the Levitical references to homosexual sex are not conclusive enough?

 

 

Yes Kevin(wrx)! Kevin(wrx) answer Kevin(wrx) please

 

#levity

[GayatfootofCross]

6 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

apparently you didn't read what Tom has in his signature in every single post he writes:  "(And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)"

Maybe Pickle is in a pickle  regarding his freedom to express anything different from his organization! And thinks it should be applied across the board and yonder?

Representing his God?

 

#thoughtpolice

......................................................

me being silly loving that green name of yours

[Bravus]

Happy to try that, but probably well over half of the posts in this thread have been off topic, so all that is likely to do is spread the mess out.

What is needed is a change of attitude and approach.

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Kevin, you don't think the Levitical references to homosexual sex are not conclusive enough?

I am listening to all sides of this issue. I am only wanting to share here some of what is being discussed. We tend to think that we have the correct interpretation of these verses. But there are arguments that as you look at things such as context and language that we are reading into the text things that are not in the actual context of what is being discussed. We are so sure of our traditions that we don't realize that we are misreading the Bible. We think it is so clear, but those who look at the Rich man and Lazarus think that here they see the Bible clearly teaching about hell. Or absent from the body and present with the Lord, or one man esteemes one day above another. etc. The verses appear crystal clear to these people, but we know that they are wrong. And there is evidence that we may be in the same boat on this topic.

Yes, I believe that the Leviticus references are conclusive enough but we may be reading the wrong conclusion into those words.

[Gregory Matthews]

Life asked of me:

 

Quote

And we should accept your opinion because------------------------?

 

I am a bit surprised that you would need to ask what should be the basis of one deciding that the opinion/statement of another was correct.  As I recall, you are of advanced age and even older in years than I am.  I would have thought that you would have over the years developed your personal rational for deciding whether or not the opinion/statement of another should be accepted as fact.

Well, you have asked the question.  Without listing in any order of priority, I will share my response to your question.  I will suggest that the following could be a partial basis for accepting the opinion/statement as accurate:

1)  The background of the person making the statement.  A person who has been given a Nobel prize for chemistry is potentially better informed on an issue involving a chemical subject than would be a clergy-person.  A physician who specializes in operating on people is probably better able to do so than would be a child psychologist.

2)  The logic of the opinion/statement.  A statement to the effect that 1 + 2 equals 11, is not logical on its face.  However, not only might it be correct, but it would be correct if that statement was made in the context of a binary system.

3)  The general agreement of the community at large as to the correctness of the opinion/statement.  As a general statement, it is accepted that the normal, typical, human cells contains 46 chromosomes.  However, general statements may be incorrect when applied to a specific situation.  There are human cells that contain only 23 chromosomes.  In addition, I lived through the time when our knowledge base transitioned from a belief that the normal/typical human contained 48 chromosomes to 46.  Further, we now know that there are atypical exceptions to my general statement.

4)  The relation of an excepted standard to the opinion/statement.  If you want to know the size of a meter of length, you might compare it to a bar of platinum-iridium alloy maintained at the International bureau of Weights and Measures in France.  Or you might compare it to the distance of 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of a certain line in the spectrum of a Krypton isotope of atomic number of 86.  However, you might need to consider the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, or you might not need to so consider.  So, even simple issues may be complex.

5)  The relation of the opinion/statement to a personally accepted standard which you chose to apply to the opinion/standard.  For some issues, some people might want to compare to the Quran.  Others might want to compare to the Bible.  Others might want to compare to what their Mother/Father taught them as a child.

Life, as you will probably agree, I have not exhausted listing the criteria that one might use to determine whether or not my (or anyone elses) opinion/statement was correct.  I trust that I have stimulated you thinking on the subject.

However, as you read my response, keep in mind that today is April the first, which should be significant to you.  Regardless of that fact, each of the above statements is factually correct.  By the way, each of them could probably be considered to be high-school level of knowledge, in our society today.

Also, keep in mind that my wife, who knows me well, says that I have a very dry sense of humor which sometimes is not easy to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Robert]

On 4/1/2016 at 1:02 AM, Kevin(wrx) said:

I think it would've been more effective to put each relevant verse in question into its own thread to clean up some of the confusion.

I'll be happy to do this....I chose Romans 1:18-32 NASB