Ok, and here's part 2 of my earlier discussion about today's sermon.
Pastor Scott told us about how he was talking to someone earlier this week about preparing his sermon, and the person asked him what it was about. "Well, I'll be preaching about creation and Adam and Eve," he said. His friend replied,
"Yeah, Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE".
One thing that I've noticed about our church since we started going there last August is that they tend to stay away from the hot button topics like homosexuality. That's one of the things I love about my church. I get so sick of hearing about the
"sin of the week", so it's refreshing to go to a church that doesn't really talk about those things, and rather focuses on Jesus and forgiveness. We do talk about sin, but we don't pick *one sin* and dwell on it, like so many mainstream churches do these days. So this is the first time since August that I've actually heard a sermon that even so much as mentions homosexuality.
That being said, Pastor Scott continued, making note of the fact that our church doesn't dwell on specific sins, especially homosexuality. He went on to say that while he wasn't really going to talk about homosexuality, he was going to say that
the creation story wasn't written to defend a heterosexual relationship. There are other places in the Bible that discuss that particular sin, but it's not in the first few chapters of Genesis. Using the creation story to define a Biblical partnership as being between a man and a woman is taking that story out of its context.
I think that Pastor Scott made a great point here. I hear so many Christians saying "Well, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". It's become a very common argument against homosexuality. But the fact of the matter is that the creation story was not meant to be an example of a model relationship. I'm not going to go into whether homosexuality is right or wrong here, but I am saying that if people are going to argue against gay relationships, they need to at least make sure they're using an
appropriate verse to make their point. Moses (the assumed author of Genesis) was simply telling the story of creation. When he wrote Genesis, he had no idea that homosexuality would be such a major issue hundreds of years down the road. The creation story just is not meant to be evidence of God's plan for marriage to be a man and a woman.
If you do choose to leave comments regarding this post, please do not let it become a debate about homosexuality.
We aren't here right now to discuss if it is right or wrong, simply the validity of the creation story as an argument against homosexuality. Thanks. :)
Comments (14)
Thanks for stopping by my site, dragon. Feel free to come back any time.
In regards to the "God didn't make Adam and Steve" ... God did make Adam and Eve, and yes, God created Steve as well. God created ALL of us. Homosexuality/adultery/rape/murder/theft/gossip/covetousness/jealousy are all sins AMONG sins, and not one of those sins is ABOVE any other sin. God offered redemption to Adam. And he offered redemption to eve. And he also offers redemtion to Steve and anyone else who wants it.
(by the way, I believe marriage is sacred and should be between a man and a woman, and that marriage should be modeled after Jesus' love for the church. - read my post on that topic)
I cannot help but cringe when homosexuality and rape are mentioned in the same statement....sigh.
My beliefs aside, the cliche "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is completely ridiculous. Like you said, the creation story is irrelevant to homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality/transexuality/any sexuality. An individual spewing off that line instantly sounds a pompous preteen.
And "born again Christians" sell this quote for Church Billboards, bumper stickers, and t-shirts....sounds an awful lot like hatred and greed.
While I do not believe homosexuality is right in anyway...I too find that statement annoying.
@Stacybird24@xanga - Exactly. The whole "Adam and Steve" argument has always annoyed me.
As far as "grouping" sin, homosexuality can be compared to any of the following:
Lying
Adultery
Stealing
Rape
Lust
Murder
Dishonoring one's parents
All sin is the same in God's eyes. Stealing a candy bar is just as much sin as having a same-sex relationship. I am opposed to homosexual relationships from a Biblical point of view, but that's not what this discussion is about. :)
I never understood was why homosexuality is such a hot button topic among Christians (you know, I have to admit, the word "Christian" almost makes me wince nowadays -- I'd rather use the word "Believer" now). Even the fact that Christians need "corroborating evidence" is ridiculous. If it is said in scripture, "X" is a sin, by our faith and belief, that's exactly what it is; we don't need evidence to support it.
Steal = Sin = Bad
Kill = Sin = Bad
Homo-sex = Sin = Bad
Malice = Sin = Bad
Eat too much food = Sin = Bad
I don't see flame wars among Christians about All-You-Can-Eat buffets, even though I'll wager that a higher percentage of people sin by simply eating too much food; and even more by being malicious towards one another.
So what if certain people are born with a genetic tendency toward homosexuality? It doesn't change anything. Some people are born with a genetic tendency to kill or rape people, but they don't -- whether through self-discipline or through their Faith. What confounds me is that we are all sinners; yet so many Christians are quick to point fingers, call people heretics and hate based on the view that the other guy's sin is worse than their own -- even more confounding is that it's Politically Correct to "love" the homosexual and welcome them "regardless of their heinous sin"; yet how often do we see ourselves welcoming in criminals with the same degree of open-ness? What about the guy who KILLED JESUS? If we could bring him forward from the past, Jesus would want us to love and forgive and show mercy and grace to the man that KILLED THE SON OF GOD.
My point is, we're all sinners. The guy who makes snide "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" comments from his holier-than-thou throne is no better than the very people he mocks and persecutes. I say, pull that plank out of your own eye, buddy.
Oops. I guess I comandeered your page again.
You know, I worry about what I'm going to write about -- and then I talk to you; and suddenly I have tons of topics to write about. I think that comment above is going to become a full size entry on my thing.
LOL. :)
@archangel - You know, every time you post or comment, I think "Hey! That sounds like what I would say!" I think we're going to get along just fine. :D
LOL Totally. It's a great feeling knowing somebody actually thinks the same way -- it makes the world that much of a less-lonely place, I tell you. I have to admit though, I think you're the only person who actually reads my thing. =/
@archangel - Give it time, pretty soon I won't be your only fan. :) I brought half of my fans over from my Xanga site, so I cheated anyways. :p
@Catholicforlife - I'm leaving your comment up, as I don't want to be known as a comment deleter so soon in my Revelife career here, but I did say that the discussion wasn't about homosexuality, it was about the Adam and Steve argument. If you find the subject matter annoying, you are more than welcome to not read it. Thanks! :)
@pinksunfiredragon - i know that and i am truely sorry; i was thinking if i should post the comment, but i saw others do it. i dont care if you do or not delete it, i would like it actually. i really dont want you to develop hostile feelings towards me.
@Catholicforlife - It's gone and forgotten. :)
Anyone who relies on that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" is just trying to hide the fact that they have no legitimate argument, and probably have the IQ of an average naked mole rat. My first thought is, "Hoorah, you've used the most unoriginal phrase against being gay, are you happy you've completely convinced me that all gays should be banished towards the moon. [insert eye roll]" Ugh.