Excellent! Thanks, Donna, for these intelligent & courageous distinctions.

Oh, Donna, there you go again! Expecting us to think! Your thoughts deserve careful thought and study.

Donnas characterizations of sodomy as rape, as in the calling for the strangers to come out, is well taken but the problem is the lack of insight into where to place that in the biblical context of homosexuality in general.

She misuses the Sodom account as representative of homosexuality in general. If she took the principals and context of the other texts on the subject she could see how misplaced the vision in this piece is.

She mentions the passage, "Neither the “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” shall inherit the kingdom of God." and I'm sure has passing familiarity with the passage "do not lie with a man as a man lays with a woman" as well, but fails to account that neither of these passages or many others has any application to forced sex.

A man that chooses to lay with a man as a man would a woman is not being taken advantage of with a broom handle and yet it still says not to do it. Further the statement is not parsed. It has no qualifiers as in , unless your really in love, or unless you were born that way.
Clearly the author makes no distinctions on those accounts and makes an inclusive statement.
Do not lie with any man, for any reason, at any time, as a man would lie with a woman.

It is in this distinction and others that Donnas perspective falls apart. She spins the accounts she wants in the way she wants to arrive at a conclusion she wants.

Advocates for homosexual relations would say those who disagree with them do the same but even if that were true, Donnas account doesn't explain the discrepancies between her vision and the other texts on the subject that shatter her points.
Those texts do not come from those who disagree with her, they come from the bible and as such, are not spin or perspective.
She must account for them before any opinion from those who oppose her views are even verbalized.

"Due to confidentiality issues we are not be able to advertise the names of some of our speakers."
If those who engage in same sex relationships believe it is OK why must there be anonymity? Often, not always, anonymity is coexistent with what is forbidden by Scripture. If I really believed the Kinship group were following Scripture I would have no hesitation in having my name associated with it.

Donna, thanks for taking on this subject here with the subject of homosexuality being the main focus of this blog. This is a much more appropriate space for that discussion than hijacking the main topic of other news posts that have homosexuality only as a by-line.

I certainly don't mind reading and participating in a discussion on homosexuality, but when many (not all) of those who speak up against it don't really have anything at stake in their posts, it really doesn't have much clout to those who are actually walking in their shoes as homosexuals and all that which comes with that broad label. I still have yet to meet anyone who is heterosexual and has chosen to live as a homosexual... actually a heterosexual who has chosen to live as a homosexual, isn't really a homosexual. Think about that one for a bit.

Donna, I agree.. the Sodom story has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Sodomy (forced intercourse) is as shocking to homosexuals as it is to everyone else.

BTW - greetings from the Kinship Kampmeeting in Pomona. The week and particularly today (Sabbath) has been filled with blessings beyond words. The Kampmeeting is an event that anyone could have attended and joined us in worship and fellowship and gotten to know what homosexuals really do. You would have probably been disappointed when your preconceived notions about what takes place are wrong, but you would have gotten a spiritual blessing like you probably have never experienced before.

I'll keep reading the blog here to see what points get brought up.

Floyd

Donna,

Great post as a starting point for a meaningful discussion!

It really is necessary to separate the different aspects of “homosexuality”: What scripture has to say (or not say, as the case may be), the sexual aspects of homosexuality, the violence aspect, sexual purity/fidelity, or conversely, promiscuity, infidelity and perversity. I also like how you’ve put homosexuality/heterosexuality in the context of a person’s overall spiritual fruit-bearing, not just a easy superficial label based on one aspect (sexual orientation) of the total person.

There are so many under-explored discussions in this often-debated topic. How do we define fidelity and purity in the context of persons denied the option of marriage (church and/or civil)? If/When the church accepts homosexuals as equals, can we hold them to the same moral standards as we do heterosexuals? Given the lack of the marriage option for many, what would be the congregation-defined equivalent? I realize churches seldom disfellowship heterosexuals for these types of offenses anymore, but we do discipline them; so what are the standards/criteria for homosexuals?

As more churches incorporate LGBT individuals/couples into the life of the congregation, these issues will become more immediate.

I totally agree that believers have traditionally done a gross injustice to homosexuals. But only in our refusal to acknowledge the real biological nature of the orientation, and our insistence that homosexuality is always a choice. I cannot imagine how heartrendingly frustrating that must be. Beyond that, I have not been able to find any biblical grounds for embracing the lifestyle. Maybe some day someone might be able to show me. This article hasn't. Its argument about rape, forced sex and violent sodomy is patently strained. Sorry.

Don Tucie
Testing the proud mantra

"Beyond that, I have not been able to find any biblical grounds for embracing the lifestyle." --Don

There is no single heterosexual lifestyle & neither a single homosexual one.

By "lifestyle" I mean any homosexual intercourse. The same goes for embracing the orientation. We might not be able to do anything about it, but as far I understand the Bible, acting on the urge is not accommodated. Just like acting on any urge to sin. The way I see it, same sex attraction may be just another cross which, like the apostle's thorn in the flesh, some of us are called upon to bear.

Don Tucie

Very possible.

"It also helps if one can use scripture to justify one’s self-righteous position." Works both ways, doesn't it?

Alle - check out Jesus Christ Superstar - a little different take

"Jonathan gve his weapons to his servant and said 'Go and carry them to the town." When the servant went off, David rose from beside the hillock and fell with his face to the ground and bowed down three times. They kissed each other and both shed many tears. David then rose and left, and Jonathan went back to the town" (1 Sam 20:40-43).

Homosexual love was expressed then. Only sexual exploitation of either sex was condemned.

Tom, could you explain your meaning of this:

"It seems the troubling issue is that today's homosexual whats not only inclusion but endorsement."

Does inclusion in membership mean endorsement? Does endorsement mean approval? What sinner could then expect to ever be endorsed?

Or, does inclusion in God's family mean a different type of membership than all other members?

Have any of us here asked for the church's endorsement?

Just so we understand your meaning.

Your last comment about the Minister of Music is totally uncalled for... and simply demonstrates stereotypical ignorance.

You infer (by the topic of this discussion) that this person (male or female.. you didn't specify) was homosexual because s/he died of AIDS.

Because of this type of "thinking", people reading this don't give much credence to other things that such a person says.

The Bible is a wonderful book, when it isn't taken out of context. I have never heard a homosexual say they didn't like or agree with The Great Controversy for any reason relating to homosexuality. That must be another myth that is being propagated.

I agree with the thought in one of the posts above that we don't have to agree with the other sides way of thinking. But let me add that we need to respect each other. We can coexist, we can worship the same God, we can shop at the same grocery store, we can even sit in the same pew in church. Whether I believe that homosexuality is a sin or not, whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin or not... doesn't really effect each other's lives. If I marry another gay man has no bearing on your life and your family. If I, as a gay man, marry your daughter in order to try to act straight.... THAT DOES have an effect on your life and your family.

So if we each allow the other one to be themselves and to worship God, it really doesn't harm the other and in the end let God pull out any weeds HE sees fit to remove. My relationship with God is so strong that I'm OK with that. You see, I believe... no, I KNOW that I'm as OK with God as any heterosexual is. I don't need someone else to tell me they feel I'm right or wrong. God is my guide.

But this post isn't what Donna is looking for. She is wanting some HONEST dialog. I just couldn't let that last comment pass without standing up for the Minister of Music.

Tom,

If a child is baptized into Adventism, as is very often the case, and he or she later discovers the attraction is solely to the same sex, this is not someone asking for membership but one who has been a member. At what point, if any, should such a person be asked to resign his membership? Does retaining his membership confer endorsement? How is that any different than members who may have:
worked on Sabbath; been divorced and remarried; or imbibed alcohol? Are there degrees of sin, and how would one question either a heterosexual or homosexual if he is celibate?

If a church must "approve" its present or incoming as being sinless how many members would there be left?

Cute, Michael! Love you. ;-)

In the case of open homosexual partnership, the church is being asked to accept a situation that the church has defined as sin. That is endorsement. Now if the church redefines its position as many have, then there is no problem.

The issue here is a plea to change the church's position. It has yet to be pursasive to the denominational leadership.

AT the level of inter-personal relationship, the issue is how should sinners treat each other---I say with all civility and christian ethics.

I personally think the urge to find acceptance in Church membership is a false security blanket.

A lesbian couple were my next door neighbors for 12 years. One took seriously ill and the other was
unable to do yard work. So I did their yard, did minor plumbing. and was a neighborly as I was able.

Donna makes a good point on an individual basis. I think her's is a lost cause as to the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination. I merely tried to lay out the basis of resistance. Tom Z.

---"Jonathan gve his weapons to his servant and said 'Go and carry them to the town." When the servant went off, David rose from beside the hillock and fell with his face to the ground and bowed down three times. They kissed each other and both shed many tears. David then rose and left, and Jonathan went back to the town" (1 Sam 20:40-43).

Homosexual love was expressed then. Only sexual exploitation of either sex was condemned.

Elaine"
___

This is not the first time I've heard someone attempt to use this verse as support for homosexuality. Trying to infer homosexuality from this text is not an honest appraisal of this scripture.

The fact of the matter is that in America, in many cultures, including my own, women may hug, hold hands, sleep in the same bed, and even give each other pecks of affection without being considered lesbians. Yet, those same actions initiated between two men are considered gay. However, in MANY other parts of the world, including several Middle Eastern countries, these actions are benign when engaged in regardless of there being 2 men or 2 women. Indeed, little boys often hold hands as much as little girls until North American society teaches them that it is "effeminate" of an indication of homosexuality. Therefore, to project a 21st century American mindset onto a fleeting description of a Middle Eastern relationship that took place millenia ago and to conclude the nature of their relationship is homosexual is far fetched to say the least.

People often also attempt to use David's declaration that Jonathan's love was deeper than the love of women as an indication that they were sexual partners. Again, it's very difficult to hang an argument on that. Especially, when several Psalms extol the Lord as being a "lover" or engaging in a love that surpasses all other relationships. Although the same wording is used, I have NEVER heard anyone (sane) suggest this would indicate some sort of erotic love toward God!

In our society, the word "bromance" has crept into contemporary usage to describe a deep, heterosexual love between two men. David's expression of love toward Jonathan could possibly be translated into the common present-day expression "Bros before hoes" (my apologies to anyone offended--but that IS the expression--crass as it may be).

None of us knew David and Jonathan personally, so any beliefs about them beyond what is specifically said is purely speculatory. However, because there is no explicit reference to any sort of erotic love between Jonathan and David (and let's face it, the Bible is not shy about enumerating the sexual exploits of David) there's not any strong evidence to support that this relationship was homosexual in nature.

Is sexual orientation in the genes? Yet another indication might be at hand.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200011/sexuality-hand

quote:
According to Kenneth Zucker, a researcher at the University of Toronto's Center for Addiction and Mental Health, homosexuals are more likely to be lefties than heterosexuals. Zucker analyzed data collected in 20 different studies over the past 50 years and discovered a correlation between left-handedness and homosexuality. The findings indicate that lesbians have a 91 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women, while gay men are 34 percent more likely than straight men to not be right-handed. While Zucker says the research provides empirical evidence that links homosexuality to left-handedness, he also adds that "we don't have a definitive answer as to why the relationship exists."
end quote

Creationism probably does not have an answer for this, as why would God create more right handers than left, and endow the lefties with statistically greater artistic interest and potential???
while sending more righties off to war? originally on the left side of the trail/road as in England, enabling the fight to be done on the right side of the horse with ones right hand.

but Darwinian "survival of the fittest may" have some interesting suggestions:

the Human heart is located toward the left side of the body.....so any proto-humans who fought with or threw their spears with their left hand and protected their bodies with their right hand, may have died in battle disproportionally to the right handers whose left hand and arm protected their hearts as they threw their spears right handed.

Thus more right handed spear chuckers may have survived to produce offspring.

But why are left handers so generally thought more "artistic" than right handers???

Studies of british men conceived, carried or born from the WW2 era of the London Blitz may cast additional light.

The old study (I cant find but read in a psyche book yrs ago) done to assess the question of genetics or environment (all those male military schools?) claimed that far more guys admitted to being light in the loafers if they had been carried (gestated) during the Blitz, than those who where born before, or conceived and carried after....possibly indicating that a mother under stress (bombed during the Blitz) may affect her in utero sons conversion from a female (which conceived egg starts out as) to a male via the changes brought on by increasing testosterone levels. Finger length has also recently been related to this. Both issues could indicate a possible genetic connection as well as in utero environmental influences.

Helen Fisher, the lady anthropologist who wrote the book..."the sex contract" (so don't blame me for being un- PC) writes that when central African banana resources were diminishing for simian proto-humans as the continent drifted north into the Sahara dry belt, hundreds of thousands (if not million) yrs ago, the most aggressive macho males and their Harley Babes left their drying out woodlands, boring friends, and drying up elders behind and learned to walk upright in order to see over the tall grass to avoid the sabertooth tigers.

The "sex contract" Fischer refers to resulted from the new walking upright stance, which in addition to continuing to allow conventional monkey love, it modified the geometry of a females reproductive parts to enhance face to face missionary position, the better for the gals to make their guys promise to build them a house if they got preggers. This developed into a new "line" of proto humans, for having migrated to a new area with new and better food. They also more aggressively "made" offspring, whose increasing numbers learned to hunt as well as collect bananas, thereby out surviving the stay behind former tribe. And fighting with equally aggressive neighboring tribes over a recent "kill" might have resulted in fewer left handers reproducing and the strongest to survive, enjoy the BBQ'd mammoth, and go home to make more kids. This new type of proto-human excelled at survival and learning hunting skills, with the males developing their right hands for all types of efforts, and left brains for navigation, and they never learned to stop and ask direction like females who stayed behind and worked out of both sides of their brains solving family squabbles.

This divergence in populations left behind the least aggressive males and females in the increasing drought stressed environment , who soon ran low on food, and the females rejected the stay behind gentle, less testosterone motivated males, who disdained hunting and eventually took up wall papering and interacting with each other. And because of lower testy levels, They never developed the gene for making war, so rarely was there a survival of the fittest issue between left and right handers, resulting in a greater proportion of left handers surviving and taking up artistic ventures. (think Hollywood, and many art colonies). But they never reproduced as much as the aggressive right handers, so their numbers became limited as a percent of overall population.

This may also have resulted in Dont Ask Dont Tell, because the least artistic guys motivated more toward making war may have the greatest testy levels, and they really worry (in larger numbers) about the artistic guys protecting their 6 oclock... about the guys with lower testy levels and different interests possibly reluctant to shoot .
..."Hey, Sarge...you can't possibly want me to shoot that guy over there...he's SOOO cute"

don't blame me......its just an old army theory about whom you want to be stuck in a tight foxhole with.....(ggg)

but....a quick google of Barney Frank shows that he is left handed, enjoys painting, opposes military spending......never joined the military, and let one of his "friends" run a brothel out of his apartment, and got another a 200k/yr job at FNMA which helped bring on this recession.
And he's part of helping get out of it???????

as an aside.....two armed, mounted knights approaching each other have options to show their non aggressive status:
1) extend the right hand, empty , to show no weapons in it, like the indians used to do....
....."HOW....kemo sabe"
or
"I 'm unARMed"....which became the right handed "shake"

or
2) reach up with the right hand, and raise the metal visor on the helmet over ones eyes thereby showing ones eyes for ID, and indicating a non aggressive stance......and the oncoming opposer does the same, which resulted in the military salute. done right handed.
and
3) guys with war helmets had to remove them in God's house, to show their peaceful intentions, so its "hats off" for us guys inside, while a guys cute gal had to wear a veil if not burka to hide her good looks from other suitors, and any women exceptionally fugly had to wear a full burka to hide that....hence women wearing veils or hats in church is still stylish back in Anglo-Saxon Land.

at the wedding, the male walks the plank on the right side..his friends sitting on that side of the church......to enable him to reach left into his top coat, buttoned for that, and reach his sword on his left hip, and whip it out to defend his having stolen the bride from the neighboring village...along with his "best" man and groomsmen waiting to defend against such a reprisal.

womens buttons didn't need to open for access to a sword, and any woman of value would have a servant, so womens buttons are placed to allow for right handed operation from the servants perspective.... and therefore backwards from mens buttons.

not that women are backward...or that men are right all the time....but we non artistic right handers do not (usually) have to stop all the time and ask for directions.

oh, and please address any angry comments to http://www.helenfisher.com/
a FEMALE anthroPOLOGIST

The church in general doesn't seem to have a problem (anymore) with homosexuals who are celibate. OK...

In our society, life is easier if it is shared.. financial and daily duties, etc.

So if two women live together to make life easier, is that OK. We don't necessarily know if they are lesbian or not. They learn to care about and respect each other and become very important to each other. Again, no confirmation (and I wouldn't ask them) if they are lesbian or not. They may be in their 20s or in their 70s, immaterial.

Then add a physical aspect.. they hold hands (as is custom for women to do... even as just platonic friends). Either when they are walking through the park talking/strolling or when they are crossing the street at a busy intersection. They might even kiss each other on the cheek when they say good bye or hello. Many cultures kiss as greetings... both heterosexual and homosexual...and some of these include a kiss on the lips as well. Very innocent.

So at what point does this become a sin or a problem with the church, assuming that people are correct when they claim that homosexuality is a sin? Sexual insertion never comes into play. They, even as just "roommates" may give each other a back rub to ease stress. They may even share a bed for sleeping because of finances. Again, whether heterosexual or homosexual, these women may give each other a hug while in bed (as well as out of bed).

Do these two women raise any eyebrows? Are they living in sin? Would they be reprimanded by the church?

Now change the gender to two males. Same scenario and circumstances. Is this a sin or a problem? At what point does it move from the "OK" to the "not-OK" phase?

Does it have to have some "insertive" activity to become a sin? When does the touch and hand holding become a problem? Are there certain areas of the body that only opposite gender humans can touch?

Now what about a man and a woman...married for several years with 3 beautiful children. The wife has never told anyone that although she loves her husband, she is actually more physically and emotionally attracted to other women. She allows her husband to have sex with her, but she doesn't enjoy it and often fantasizes that it is another woman so that she can make the act go by quicker. She has never been in a relationship with another woman, but she cherishes the times when she can go shopping and go to eat with her female friends and be understood in ways her husband can't understand her. Is she sinning as a non-practicing lesbian living a lie in a heterosexual marriage?

Turn the tables again and this time the man in a similar scenario is gay. He is able to perform and procreate, but he feels trapped in his marriage. What would society think if they knew that while he was having sex with his wife, he was actually thinking about his best friend or the guy that he works out with at the gym and what it would be like to be able to express his love for another man. He loves his wife... like a sister... but she meets none of his emotional needs as a homosexual male and he doesn't know what to do.

In heterosexual marriages, the man and wife compliment each other. But in a mixed marriage where one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual the needs of both (or either) aren't being met. Homosexuals in such marriages have learned to be great actors and even liars, but the element that makes a true union, a loving relationship, is missing. When homosexuals claim to have changed (in most cases) what changes is their behavior, but that missing element is still missing and one learns to deny themselves of that true happiness that 90+% of the population can enjoy. Doesn't God want us to be 100% happy and fulfilled? Why would we deny someone else of a basic human need that we enjoy but they aren't allowed to? When you wrongly compare homosexuality to alcoholism, or pedophilia, or stealing, these aren't basic human needs like love and the spark that exists between two people in a loving equal relationship.

If we assume that all the men in Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, the society would only last for one generation. Homosexual males have no desire to marry females. Are we assuming that the women were also homosexual? Certainly if homosexuality exists, it exists in both genders. If no one was getting married there would be no offspring. If homosexual men and lesbian women were getting married or at least procreating, then the children would probably be 10% homosexual and 90% heterosexual. Since ALL the men in the city were gay, where were the 90% of the children going, once they grew up? Why would Lot and his family live in a town that was 100% homosexual? It had to be more than just a great hairdresser for Mrs. Lot!!! Why wasn't Lot being sodomized for being a non-homosexual?

It was very common in that time period and in that part of the world, to sodomize strangers that came into your territory. It showed them who was boss and in control. It made the victim to be the "woman" in the act and women had no rights and weren't even considered human. So sodomy (rape) had nothing to do with love or caring for someone else or even being horny. It was the opposite. It was the highest form of "inhospitality" that could be shown. That is why the sin of Sodom is referred to as inhospitality. Homosexuality as we are referring to it today.... two people of the same gender who love each other... has nothing to do with the act of sodomy in biblical times, that is confused with homosexuality of today.

It seems like (forced) anal intercourse is what is the big no-no; not the loving connection between two individuals. Anal intercourse is something that is practiced by all sexual orientations, and is something that is not practiced by all homosexuals, and usually not by lesbians.

So going back to Donna's original blog at the top of these comments, I can't see that there is any correlation between what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah in ancient times and homosexuals who want human rights today... rights to be able to be who they are. If all homosexuals (men and women) were gang raping their straight counterparts, then I too would agree that God needs to reign down fire and destroy that wickedness (inhospitality) to their fellow humans. But that isn't the case.

So in light of the Sodom and Gomorrah story can anyone answer my question as to when a relationship becomes inappropriate (since folks say it is the ACT that is offensive/sin and not the orientation)? We are created to love and to express our love, which usually begins by touch. We love our friends and tell them that we love them, we love our families and tell them we love them, we love our wives/partners/spouses and tell them we love them. The natural response is to reach out and touch our loved ones, a pat on the hand, a kiss on the cheek, a rub on the shoulder muscles to say I love you and I care.

Sexual relations (whatever that might include) in the Bible were to take part inside the legal bounds of a marriage. This protected the children and since the wife for most of history was the property of the husband it protected her as well. It kept the inheritance lines clear. Sexual intercourse was usually done out of the need to plant the seed in an incubator and create offspring, or out of lust (being horny). We have very few examples where biblical characters made love because they were IN LOVE. Because the Bible is fairly silent on that topic, does it mean that we shouldn't marry for love or have sex for any reason other than procreation?

Hopefully my long post has given you some things to think about. Life is not black and white. God made a rainbow of colors for us to enjoy in all aspects of life.

Floyd

I understand Floyd that for your mental health you feel the need to rationalize the participatory homosexual relationships, but it is stretching credulity to its limits to draw the inferences you and Donna have concerning the Sodom story. However if a person was less inclined to make stories as one would have them, one would realize that that interpitation of the Sodom story and its rational as a justification for "loving" homosexual relationships falls apart when used against many other passages where homosexuality is spoken of.

A. The Text: Rom 1:18-32:

1. A rather lengthy passage in which Paul uses homosexuality as indicative both of man's deep seated rebellion against God and God's proper condemnation of man.

2. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
=================================================
And here is the kicker. One cannot say that Paul is talking of being inhospitable.
=============================================================
"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

As Paul describes it he goes from the most identifiable descriptors first and the finer and specific points second. Just like if a person who doesn't know you wants to come to visit you at a class reunion you start with the City then the street then the house number.

I still don't see where you are all going with this back and forwards!!!

You can't convince either side and so it is pointless.
Education is the key, but if you believe the Bible it says you don't waste your pearls and move on.
As a Gay person I have many pearls and have moved on.

I won't worship where an organisation has blood on its hands.
My belief in God, Christ, Spirit and Jesus does not depend on the Adventist church.

My only pray is that people do find peace outside organised religion and take what is good from them and leave the rest.
Toxicities do no one any good and destroy the spirit within.
To many people on this site are toxic because of the Adventist church and its dogma.
Noel

Who are we to condemn those whom God has joined together. ~Donna

That's just it. God didn't join them together. Gods plan is laid out in the bible. Debate Christ on your position.
Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The inhospitable argument gets shot down and it changes to a more generic "filled with unrighteousness"?
I still have never met a person with the Gall to suggest that Gods plan was whoever you love is how God planned it.

In Romans 1
1. Here are the specific words Paul uses to describe this behavior:

a. An impurity and dishonoring to the body (v24)

b. A degrading passion that's unnatural (v29)

c. An indecent act and an error (v27)

What if one's "natural" desire is for the same sex (co-called constitutional homosexuality)?
1) 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..."

a) "Function" (#5540) v 26&27 kreesis, is used only these two times in NT but is frequently used in other literature of the time.

b) According to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (BAG), A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago Press), the definitive Greek language standard reference work, the word means "use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse."

2) Paul is not talking about natural desires here in this instance, but natural functions.

a) "Natural" is not determined by what you want sexually, but by how you function sexually.

1. The body was built to function a specific way.

2. Men were not built to function sexually with men.

b) Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex for the unnatural function is what Paul calls a degrading passion.

c) Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship:

1. Matthew 19:4-5 "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?"

2. The desire is unnatural because it abandons the natural function.

a. Extramarital heterosexual sex is wrong because it exploits a natural function in an immoral way.

b. Homosexuality is an immoral act based on the perversion of a natural function.

On Romans 1:
http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/05/21/clobber-passage-romans-1/

well I guess that exhausts the discussion on the sheep and goats.....

In God's eye, I'm a sheep, no matter what anyone else classifies me as.

Sabbath is just around the corner, so I wish everyone a peaceful, blessed and restful Sabbath. I do miss the fellowship that we enjoyed at Kinship Kampmeeting. last week, where straights and gays worshiped together in one accord. A little piece of heaven. There are things that simply transcend squabbling about who is a sinner and classification of sins.... and this is true community. I know that some of you understand what I'm talking about.

Floyd

Ellen - you might be interested in a book called, "GOOD GOATS - Healing our image of God." by Dennis, Sheila & Matthew Linn. (Paulist Press) It's not on the subject of homosexuality - but it is a very good read. Your comment made me think of it.

Sabbath Blessings to all - and thanks for all your participation in this discussion.

I had a pet goat once named Pan - followed me like a dog. Wouldn't eat alfalfa hay, but was determined to eat my pony tail.

If Pan has to go to the Wilderness, I'm goin' with 'im.

My final word!

(Hopeful - love that Scripture!)

you are wrong. the SDA church accept the homosexuals looking for a change.
same like SDA accept me, looking for a Savior.
Are the gays and lesbians going to the church looking for a Savior?? or they want to be accepted without change his / her lifestyle??