Seventh Day Adventist Rainbow Ministry GBLT

On the same site it has a link called "Chuch Position" at the top that tells the SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST OFFICIAL POSITION on Homosexuality, which is what you should be looking at...

http://www.godsrainbow.org/church_position.htm


in any church there are always offshoots with weird ideas... and it doesnt at all represent our Church's position on Homosexuality.

It is a SIN and unbiblical

 

HP: It is the attraction, not the action that is addressed here. Are you going to take the position that a temptation via attraction is sin? Why would not a temptation to the opposite sex, outside of marriage, be sin then as well? It would appear to me that you are confusing temptation with sin.

 

HP:

I am having a hard time understanding why you would even take issue with what I have said. Homosexuality is a sin.

 

Ben,

I certainly hope not and if it is then it isnt something they ought to be doing.

 

HP: I agree that committing or intending to commit such homosexual acts are sin, but having an ‘attraction to’ and ‘committing’ are not one in the same.

Temptation is not sin. All sin has an attraction to selfishness. That can be nothing more than an impulse from our sensibilities. That is not sin. That is mere temptation to sin. Sin takes place as we yield our will in a selfish manner to those impulses and attractions, not before.


Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

Jesus said if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart ...to God it is a sin... so I think having an attraction to a person of the same sex is indeed a sin.

 

HP: Let me say here that I do not agree that same gender attraction is not a choice, for I believe in most cases it is.

If one has an alcohol addiction and quits drinking alcohol, he still might very well be tempted or have an attraction to alcohol. That, in and of itself, is not sin. If one is born with a craving for alcohol or drugs, due to a warped sensibility as a result of say their mothers addiction, such a proclivity in and of itself is not sin. Sin occurs when they voluntarily yield there own will in agreement to that proclivity, not before.

I believe that it is within the realm of possibility, although not the norm, to have a sense of attraction for the same sex via the sensibilities from birth. There are all sorts of abnormalities produced as a result of sin affecting the sensibilities. These are again not sin in and of themselves, but rather only serve as an influence or proclivity to sin.

Sin is willful rebellion against a known commandment of God.

Again, I DO NOT AGREE with the general statement as posted. I personally believe same sex attraction is more often than not a choice of the will, not driven by any sensibility from birth, but rather due to influences and wilful choices that even careless curiosity can induce by yeilding ones will in wilful participation. It could occur much the same as Eve was tempted in the garden. It may or may not be influenced by a proclivity from birth to such behavior. IF there is a proclivity to that attraction, I still would not believe it is sin until it is yielded to voluntarily.

The proclivity to that attraction is most likely developed as direct result of poor and or sinful choices subsequent to birth. Such an attraction may indeed continue even after the cessation of the activity. Again, such a proclivity, regardless of how one reached that point, is not sin in and of itself. Again, only as we yield our wills in agreement to such depravity is it accounted to us as sin.

Some, at salvation, are freed entirely from even the temptation to sin in that manner. Others may not be freed from temptation, but both are called upon NOT to yield to that sin again.

 

HP: I have to maintain that the lust Jesus was referring to was not mere attraction or simple desire driven by ones sensibilities, but rather Jesus was addressing a choice of the will in which the will had formulated an intent to procure that forbidden object in a selfish manner. I again see you as making no distinction between temptation and sin.

All men can be tempted by lust, but all lust is not sin. Lust can be thought of as mere strong desire, and lust can be thought of as willful intent to selfish and forbidden behavior. One is temptation to sin, the other sin itself. As James stated in explaining the difference, "Do not error."

 

From the Link on the OP --

One of the U.S conferences (not a source for theological correctness in the SDA church) approved a statement by an organization that based itself in one of the San Francisco area local SDA congregations.

If the question is "could that happen" - I think it "Could".

If the question is whether or not that organization inside that local San Francisco SDA church is correct or not -- I do not think they are flawless on this point.

However in one of their statements they argue that this position is targetting cases where someone with that problem "goes straight" and chooses to see their old life as sin. But even while being converted and reformed - senses the existence of former sinful desires. The question they 'seem to want to address' (in the best possible construction of their views) is that fellow Christians should not condemn people who left the gay life - and have chosen to repent and turn to Christ -- simply because they admit to having sinful natures and remaining sinful desires.

Like an alcoholic who leaves it for good but then admits to inner desires to drink - even though he does not actually drink alcoholic beverages.

At least "that is the BEST construction" I could give it.

In Christ,

Bob