Book Review: "The Bible & LGBTQ Adventists"

You went into way more detail explaining the process, and there is no doubt in reasonable minds that this is what takes place in our complex world of gender identification. I appreciate your explanation, but I just want all the hateful hurtful condemnation to stop. It is difficult for all of us, straight or gay, to get through this life. Anything we can do to show that God loves all of us, will help make that life a more meaningful experience.


i am very much delighted and in much jubilation that finally this is brought to light and we will have the entire peace knowing that we belong and we exist especially as the followers of Jesus.

1 Like

I agree that the curse of Ham was an intentional and erroneous factor used to justify slavery.
Hence, the reason for me raising it as an issue with what is represented to be included in The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists. In my opinion, The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists should have read that the curse of Ham was intentionally and erroneously used as a factor to justify slavery. Unfortunately, The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists, at least according to the article in Spectrum, doesn’t correctly state who was cursed, which puts a question in my mind about why the author would misrepresent scripture; the author should know better.

Not quite sure why you are so hung up on this technicality. Yes, the curse is stated explicitely to be on Canaan:

" When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”" Gen. 9:24-25

It also should be noted that this curse is traditionally referred to as the curse of Ham. Yes, I did carelessly say that “God sanctioned the enslavement of the descendants of Ham because of Ham’s sin,” when in fac the curse does not extend to all of Hams descendents. Sorry about that, but by being hung up on that little slip, you have apparently missed the entire point being made (and maybe why I need to edit my review for perfect accuracy).

The point stll stands, the text supports the contention by 19th century slaveholders, and those before them, that God sanctioned slavery. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the text, since it is in the Bible in plain words. So, the point is that we finally concluded, by the latter part of the 19th century that slavery is wrong, based “on the broader themes of human dignity, human rights, and compassion.”


Just in case you are interested, the text has been corrected to make it clear that it was Canaan’s descendants who were cursed to be slaves.

The LGBTQ issue in the church is a hot potato and it is difficult to speak about it without being accused of being homophobic if one does not agree with the LGBTQ community and/or its supporters.

I don’t consider America a Christian nation and I believe in the separation of church and state. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the citizens of this country have to adhere to the biblical principles. So, legally speaking, the citizens of the country (which include the people from the LGBTQ community) have all the rights to make same-sex marriages legal.

That is one thing.

But it is another to make the Bible say what it doesn’t really say or to silence what Scripture indeed says.

I have not read Alicia Johnston’s book but based on what Bryan Ness wrote about it, it seems that there is an attempt to justify a particular position by inappropriately use Scripture.

It is never a good idea.

1 Like

Just curious what you mean by this?


So, what you’re saying is that all of these people who were born with both male and female genitals, over 5 million alive today, are just sinful from the minute they pop out of the womb? I guess there are no mistakes, I guess there are no birth defects, there are only perfect heterosexual births that simply make “sinful” choices. Is that what you are saying? There is rarely anyone from this community that says they “chose” to be this way. I have never met any who didn’t tell me “do you honestly think I would choose to be this way with all the hateful treatment I receive from society and especially, the religious community”?

Otherwise, we have a problem with how scripture presents this issue. But let’s not forget that these biblical authors were flat earthers, people with virtually no statistical or scientific, understanding of just about anything. I doubt that they even had a concept of same sex attraction or gender misassignment, or any of the related aspects of this discussion.
And the two biblical authors who touched on this topic, one, Moses, was married but left is wife to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, the other Paul, who had to have been married to be a Pharisee, but there is never any mention of his wife, ever, and always traveled in the company of men. And yet, three and a half years of Jesus’s ministry, in which He must have come in contact with many people in the LGBTQ community, yet, not a word. But, Jesus did say, we are not to judge, that is His job. So why are we making decisions as to who can join our club, who can be baptized, who can hold positions in the church, who is “good enough” to be saved? So stop already.


Yep. It is very clear they did not understand either of these issues the way we understand them today. Heck, it wasn’t till the latter part of the 20th century that we had the scientific data to say that people are born this way. So, as you aptly point out, how could the writers of the Bible address an issue they didn’t even know existed? :wink:

1 Like

As has been pointed out previously, there is no such research and indeed the latest studies cast substantial doubt on the assertion:

I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with LGBT behavior as people have told me more than a lot of times that my thinking is sinfully abnormal and that god is going to send me to hell due to behavioral patterns that I stopped trying to change years ago.

Instead, my point is that the desire of pop culture to deny the role that nurture plays in childhood development, and blame everything on genetics, guarantees that we will only ever be able to understand, at best, half of what makes us who we are.

You might want to read the article you cite a little more carefully. I have no quibble whatsoever with the article, but it does not say that genetics has no role in the development of same-sex attraction. And it definitely does not say that most of what makes a person gay is due to postnatal environmental effects, what you refer to as nurture.

It says this:

“Now, a new study claims to dispel the notion that a single gene or handful of genes make a person prone to same-sex behavior.”

I agree, but this is not the same as saying genetics does not play an important part, as it is stated also in the article:

““The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a computational biologist at genetic testing company 23andMe in Mountain View, Calif., during a press conference.”

One of the points they are trying dispel is the idea of a “gay” gene, or a small group of gay genes, and most genetists have already concluded that there is no gay gene. You are beating a dead horse and taking it too far.

It also needs to be noted that genetics is not the only cause, but environmen too, but guess what, prenatal environment, not post-natal environment. As the article amply states:

“Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.”

And note, the “having older brothers” reference also refers to prenatal influences, it is believed, caised by the mother’s immune system. The figure here (taken from the first references listed below) explains this:

So far all attempts to identify postnatal causes of same-sex attraction that would explain most gays has simply not materialized. Sure, some gays may be gay because of posnatal “nurturing” environmental effects, but so far the specific environmetal effects remain a mystery, which means that most, if not all gays, are born with their same-sex attraction.

Scientific American is not the best source for this topic, even though it is a good place to start. Here are a couole articles with a lot more to say on the topic:

Rinaldi, A., 2022. I was born this way: New research confirms that a mix of prenatal factors and genetic differences could explain human sexual orientation. EMBO reports, p.e55290.

1 Like

I read the article and was just as impressed by what it did not say as what it did.

That is, it did not say that LGBT are “born that way” as you explicitly stated .

If I’m reading the “wrong” sources this is another sin I’ve been accused of since about the time I learned to do so, and from both sides of every issue, so there’s certainly nothing new for me in that allegation.

They did not need to explicitely say it. By saying that genetics plays a significant part along with prenatal effects, they are saying that those effects are the primary ones. If they are the primary causes of same-sex attraction, then how could that not mean that gays are born that way? They mention no postnatal factors, So connect the dots.


Science had yet to show how genes can have any effect on patterns of thinking in the brain.

The link is an assumed one similar as opposed to having been shown to be causal, somewhat similar to the way astrologists link movements in the stars to people’s fortunes here on earth, or like the “science” of phrenology which studied the shape the human skull to explain what went on in a person’s head.

In other words, the grand accomplishment of mapping the human genome has been an unmitigated disaster when compared to benefits we’d been promised after having done so. Further, there is no reason to believe that the concept that our genes make us who we are will not continue to fall further out of favor in the future, just as the sophisticated but pseudoscientific practice of alchemy has.

BTW, here’s an article from the black perspective which argues quite convincingly against the notion that our genes determine who we are:

You do know that race is not a biological category, right? Race is a social construct, so, of course race is not determined by genetics. Comparing race with sexual orientation is an apples and oranges problem. They are no comparable. This has no relevancy to whether or not genetics plays a part in the development of sexual orientation. You are simoly ignoring the ample evidence that genetics does play a part on the development of sexual orientation, as even stated in the Scientific American article.


You are ignoring everything Jay Gould said in regards to the difference between correlation and causation.

“The invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning………consider the relationship between my age and the price of gasoline during the past ten years. The correlation is nearly perfect, but no one would suggest any assignment of cause. The fact of correlation implies nothing about cause………The inference of cause must come from somewhere else, not from the simple fact of correlation-though an unexpected correlation may lead us to search for causes so long as we remember that we may not find them. The vast majority of correlations in our world are, without a doubt, noncausal.”

That is, science hasn’t shown how genetics can possibly effect sexual orientation.

I think the article is relevant in that both blacks and LGBT’s have historically been mistreated due of characteristics which have absolutely no bearing on who they are as human beings.

Oh. And because the title as well as the content utterly refutes the notion that genetic dictates who we are or what we will become.

But I get it. I’m on the wrong side of popular opinion here and scientific theories have never been shown to have been based on incorrect assumptions so it must be me who’s wrong and will bow out.

If the latest science is to be believed, fence posts are just like drunks, mass murders, pedophiles, et. als.

That is, their behavior is dictated by their genes and cannot be discussed.

No one is denying that one in every 1500 births, the infant is born with both male and female genitals. This is an absolute. So…if those BORN THIS WAY are what I would call gender dysphoric, then, why would it be any kind of a stretch to think that all, or most all, the others in the LGBTQ community would also fall into this category because they were wired differently (I realize that “wired” is a crude way to describe it, but it does give everyone a vivid perspective). That isn’t to deny that environmental issues could play a part, because they do. Just like the very high suicide rates in all this community. The judgmental and reprehensive behavior of parenting of these children has a lot to do with how they face life. The human brain is extremely complex and with all the mental deviations that people experience, it would be totally unreasonable to think that how a child is born, that it would always come out with the same orientation as its body presents. Regardless of how you think anyone becomes a member of the LGBTQ community, they are in it with no control on their part.

What this framework does is make God unfair if you, in anyway think that an LGBTQ person is born physically, mentally, or emotionally, a part of this community. How could anyone think that God would judge you sinful for how you came out of the womb? It is your “piling on” and making the life of the person you are JUDGING to be sinful is actually the sinful behavior. By doing so, you are violating rule no. 1. You are judging.


Never heard of a fence post drunk driving, or mass murdering or molesting children. They are universally immovable. The point being, you can present black and white facts and the fence post is unmoved.

Just like those that believe in a literal creation ~6,000 years ago.