What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer:  Your statement below is a half-truth and I expect better than that from you.  Either you have not read what Bravus has posted as to the purpose of this thread, or you have not understood what he has posted.   So, to be clear, I do not accuse you of dishonesty.

Bravus has clearly stated that he wanted to consider a group of texts, one of which he eliminated, one at a time and when  finished withy each, he would move on to the next text.  That is a valid approach.  While it is true, it is a focus on   one text  at a time, over time all texts are considered.  In that consideration, the contribution of each is put together to develop an overall position of the Bible on that subject.

For whatever  reason, people did not want to follow that.   Other texts were interjected into the discussion of the one.  Bravus, was falsely accused of neglecting the overall teaching of the Bible.  HE was never given a chance to finish on that one text and then to move on to another.

I believe that Bravus  could have made a valued contribution to this SDA (Biblical) issue.   NOTE:  For whatever it is worth, in the end, I do not believe that I would have agreed on every point with Bravus.

If your quote below stems from a failure to read some of what Bravus has posted, I suggest that in the future, you give a bit more time to reading what someone writes before you comment on it, unless, of course, you comment is solely focused on a specific passage.

If your comment stems from a failure to understand what Bravus has said, that often happens in these discussions.  I hope that in the future you can better understand.  Whether or not you will be able to understand better, I do not know.

 

 

Quote

But what you didnt say here was that Bravus is inflicting this topic with the prioroi of "only looking at Lev 18, . ., .

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Deleted  

[Kevin H]

On 5/2/2019 at 6:09 PM, R. G. White said:

I was not primarily referring to you. although you did say that you were couching Leviticus 18 in terms of the sanctity of marriage SO THAT it would not be proof against (multi-lettered) people. I probably should have asked you to explain that. It certainly is proof against some of their ways. I feel like this on-line community is seeking to be a place where everyone has an opinion, and everything is a matter of opinion. It leaves me feeling like a fish out of water -- not as badly as when I attempt to participate on a conservative SDA website, but it leaves me wondering what third option there might be if and when the church splits into liberal and conservative factions.

Some of the resources for the third option when the church splits into the evangelical and so called "Historic Adventist" factions will be the writings from Mrs. White, including her criticisms of fundamentalism especially in her letters to Haskell, but also her sharp letters to the pastors who's writings and thoughts have become the anchor for the so called "Historic Adventists." the writings of Willie White, W. W. Prescott, A. G. Daniels, G. E. Fifield, The teachers from Columbia Union College that Elder Wilkinson threw out, Lynn Harper Wood, Paul Heubech,  Richard Nies, the theology department from Atlantic Union College in the late 1970s and early 1980s (George Rice, John Wood, James Valentine, Herman Boweman). The husband and wife team of professors from Union College, not sure if I'm spelling their names right but Ralph and Beatrice Neal, A. Leroy Moore among others. And outside of the Seventh-day Adventists church there is Abraham Joshua Heshel (who by the way fell in love with Adventism) and Methodist archaeologist Dr. Jim Fleming. 

As you see there is still a number who did not bow their knees to Baal at least for a while. 

[R. G. White]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

this actually does sound like a good idea now that I give it some thought. Thanks, and Happy Sabbath to you & yours

Same to you!

[R. G. White]

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Some of the resources for the third option when the church splits into the evangelical and so called "Historic Adventist" factions will be the writings from Mrs. White, including her criticisms of fundamentalism especially in her letters to Haskell, but also her sharp letters to the pastors who's writings and thoughts have become the anchor for the so called "Historic Adventists." the writings of Willie White, W. W. Prescott, A. G. Daniels, G. E. Fifield, The teachers from Columbia Union College that Elder Wilkinson threw out, Lynn Harper Wood, Paul Heubech,  Richard Nies, the theology department from Atlantic Union College in the late 1970s and early 1980s (George Rice, John Wood, James Valentine, Herman Boweman). The husband and wife team of professors from Union College, not sure if I'm spelling their names right but Ralph and Beatrice Neal, A. Leroy Moore among others. And outside of the Seventh-day Adventists church there is Abraham Joshua Heshel (who by the way fell in love with Adventism) and Methodist archaeologist Dr. Jim Fleming. 

As you see there is still a number who did not bow their knees to Baal at least for a while. 

Thanks much! I don't actually know that the church will split, and I hope not, but I am alarmed at the sheer number of people who seem to be choosing one extreme or the other. Even the current GC administration is evidently guilty for their opposition to the equal treatment of women. I do not see this "biblical imperative" as being consistent with the main stream of the church, once fully informed. Nor is it consistent with our early history, as a people. The alleged sinful nature of Christ is also a thoroughly unacceptable doctrine. Needless to say, acceptance of homosexual behaviour or the Theory of Evolution is also beyond the pale. Creation took place about 6,000 years ago, as I find clearly inferred in the Bible. It seems that both conservatives and liberals are OK with Sunday keeping in the South Pacific, which I do not believe a fully informed mainstream church could or would accept. But, where are the votes to overturn it, or even the ability to get the matter onto the delegates' agenda?

Thank you for saying that there is still a number.

[Gail]

I haven’t read the entire thread so I may have missed something... In this discussion about homosexuality the focus has been on mainly on the act and not what sexuality represents biblically.

For me, sexuality from God is clothed in love and represents a oneness in a relationship. It is an exercise characterised by giving and sharing in a depth of intimacy rarely experienced.

The beauty of the Song of Solomon is the idea that it is not only a picture of the joy of being married but also of intimacy with God.

This is why the Sodom picture is so abhorrent to me. You have a whole town of men, not only gays but ALL the men, who want to not share but violate. They want to take what is not given, to violently degrade and shame their victims. 

Personally, I am not willing to equate this behaviour with that of the best loving monogamous gay relationship that happens. The Sodom event is not about relationship at all.

In the Bible, male believers are still the Bride of Jesus. That is why I try to think bigger than the sexual act. By itself it’s too limited a thought.

[GHansen]

Easy subject. The Bible say a man should not be used by another man for sexual gratification i.e., one man should not use another man like a woman.

[Bravus]

The 'God did not make a mistake in assigning your gender' argument does not acknowledge the sin-effected nature of life on Earth. People are born with both sets of genitalia sometimes, with XXY chromosomes instead of just XX or XY and so on. 'There are only two genders' doesn't stand up to science, and much of the rest of that argument about same-sex relationships stands on that claim.

I'm headed out to celebrate Mothers' Day with the family this morning: my wife of 30 years, our daughters and their (male) partners of 10 and 7 years respectively. Then to a metal gig with one of my daughters and her partner.

I may return to comment on this article tomorrow, but initially I see it turning texts to make arguments which are not connected with the purposes for which those texts were written. I'm not writing it off entirely without closer examination, but the tenor is not encouraging.

[Bravus]

I did go back and read that article. I'm afraid I was unimpressed. It takes a conclusion and then works very hard at trying to support it from Scripture, but in doing so it is clear that the reasoning is motivated and selective. I'm describing the article, not the author.

It is a clear and simple truth that, if you read the 'red words' - the words of Jesus reported in the gospel - he does not condemn same-sex relationships in those words. The author takes that premise but then makes a quite different argument.

Had we been able to successfully complete our project in this thread, it would have been clear that the Bible as a whole does condemn same-sex relationships. If we take the syllogism that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is God, then yes, that means Jesus also does. 

I don't think any of that is novel or surprising... or that it requires logical acrobatics to arrive at. 

The question of whether the Bible is morally right in that condemnation is an important one, but not one that can be meaningfully discussed with someone who considers the Bible to be the source of moral rightness.

Hope these musings and reflections are helpful: my view is that the article doesn't add anything new, but might be comforting to those who already know what they believe.