I don't doubt that Keith Burton is capable of critical thinking - that he "has published and delivered scholarly papers on analogical argumentation and deductive reasoning"is a feather in his cap. Nor do I doubt that homosexuality is a sin - that has to be the starting point for SDA discussions of the issue. But it can't be the stopping place, for all sorts of reasons. And unfortunately, in his treatment of the subject, Keith Burton showed a lamentable lack of critical thinking and analysis. He very palpably wrote from prejudice. In this defense of the original article, he constantly harps on the theme "if you just read me critically" - well, I, too, am an academic and I read the article twice and have read it again now, and I'm afraid Dr Burton actually does clearly imply all the things he now declares it is outrageous to think he said! For example, he clearly does insinuate that homosexuality is "just another addiction" by the way he trivialized it - and if he can't see that on re-reading it, then the analytical skills he touts at the end of this article have let him down.
I would almost have respected him more if he had stuck by his original convictions than producing this evasive, disingenuous post. It does not undo the harm of the first article, for he does not apologize; but tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming "no harm no foul" when his original piece was not only lacking in critical thinking, but offensive.

Critical-thinking skills is not automatically conferred for every possible subject with the Ph.D. To claim to have received credentials to be an expert in all subjects is both an arrogance not bestowed and devalues the earned doctorate in a particular subject. The terminal degree does not invoke the highest knowledge in all subjects; something too easily assumed.

ROFLOL

Some of "our thinkers" are still here. Others don't engage Adventist controversies. Others participate in conversation outside the church, and all have their reasons. It's instructive to ask them directly about their experiences.

I don't participate in all discussions around all people, and one of the reasons I pick and choose the issues I discuss and who I discuss them with is that not all conversations are created equal. I love listening and learning, especially as a way of understanding the people I'm around, but I'm not interested in being falsely characterized as a depraved kool-aid drinker; nor would I characterize others that way. It's hard for a reasonable conversation to ensue if that's how either party has chosen to perceive the other. I don't find it helpful.

Controversy on racial issues, social issues, doctrinal issues, or the process of knowledge-making itself certainly doesn't stop because of one voice or another. Tutu doesn't end discussion. Graham doesn't end discussion. Finley doesn't; Paulsen doesn't; you don't; I don't. Each voices has something to contribute, though, and I think it's important to create and nurture space for a civil and ongoing conversation. Mocking people into oblivion or shaming them into silence works against us all in the long run.

I fondly affirm some of the teachers I had at my Adventist college. They were each contrarian in one way or another but with a deeply rooted and distinct respect for God and people and for the transformational power of education. These weren't people who taught me to think. They were people who made their classrooms and offices safe spaces to do what they believed I already knew how to do. They gave me room to grow and I and many, many others did grow. Those are the kinds of teachers I was blessed with. Unfortunately, those were also the kinds of teachers who never stayed long at my college. They didn't stay long because they were not yes-people, they didn't reliably reflect committee consensus, and the infrastructure wasn't prepared to support their freedom.

It's helpful to ask where individual thinkers are going, but as we said in the thread Why Are Young People Leaving The Church, we must also ask the companion question about the corporate environment we'd like them to stay in. Is ours an environment that supports thinking, that encourages conversation, that allows for diversity of opinion and conviction, and that doesn't devolve into name-calling and disrespect? That's the companion question.

I don't find my churches supportive in this way.

Bravo, Keith! Over many years, in my personal life, in the classroom, and working with clients of many types, I have yet to see where reason, on its own, has caused errors in thinking or judgment, or led anyone astray. Critical thinking, logical analysis, and public dialogue are essential to the health of society and community, just as they are in intimate relationships. While many other important factors should be considered--goals, needs, vision, abilities, stakes and interests--let's not be afraid to argue issues by examining the merit of evidences, arguments, warrants. If we valued and put as much energy into reasoned discourse as we do into parroted prejudices and unfiltered reactions, then life would be transformed.

Keith,

I agree with the way in which you begin your comments here. But I was amazed at where you then took them. I, too, am an academic. I hold aearned Ph.D., two Master's degrees, and over 35 years of experience in higher education.

First, I do not find a 1984 reference is credible or acceptable in the field of addiction. That reference is 25 years old! I'm simply amazed that you want us to accept your credibility, and yet use just one source, and one that is unnecessarily out date. Was that because it was the source that meshed with your theory rather than informing it? I would not accept your source, from one of my students. At least not without a number of much more recent sources.

Second, you question why "someone questioned the academic readiness of a theologian to even discuss the morality of homosexual behavior." I wish to point out that there are numerous theologians who have done extensive, recent research on homosexuality. You fail to acknowledge that you are expressing your conclusions and you fail to acknowledge that there is not total agreement on this subject among SDA theologians just as competent as you are.

Third, I point out again that you are a theologian. You are NOT, as Elaine points out, qualified to speak to the concept of addiction. Again, I would never allow my students to cite you as a credible source on addiction because of your lack of academic credentials related to that topic. Simply because you have academic credentials in theology does not mean you have the credentials to speak about addiction. I am an academic administrator. And I hire faculty based on their credentials. I would never hire you to teach in behavioral science which is the field where addiction questions belongs. You are simply not professionally qualified, although you are qualified in the field of theology.

This readily brings to my mind that long-standing Adventist problem that those Adventist with theological training are thus qualified to be not only to theology teachers and pastors, but also businessmen, academic administrators, investors, accountants and auditors, etc. Our denomination has repeatedly suffered failure and scandal because of the insistence which you repeat that a theologian is prepared to function in and speak to any topic.

You call for critical thinking. And I have the academic credentials and experience to address that topic. I have the requisite degrees and have taught critical thinking for years. However you deny some of the basic tenants of critical thinking: authority of the author (you don't have it) and appropriate currency of citations, adequate documentation (you know, as is required to write a dissertation).

You have expressed opinions. Yes, anyone can do that. I can say that I think all hospitals and medical centers using the name "Adventist" should be sold or closed because that makes the most business sense. However, I would not do that because I'm not academically or professionally qualified in that area. Nor would I cite only one source, and that being 25 years old, to support my opinion.

Sadly, I believe you are still hurting your credibility.

And, BTW, don't ever even repeat the term "GLBT Koolaid". As a Black man you know the hurt inflicted by the flipant use of disrespectful terms and labels (I won't stoop to use any here in illustration). You should know better, sir. Keith, be respectful!

John

Congratulations John.
You just made Keith a prophet.

Perhaps you could have read the section entitled "Challenging Credentials" a little closer and saved yourself some aggravation.

Also read the conclusion section again, where the prescient Kieth said, "It would be foolish of me to think that any thinking person would take this column as the last word......"
To which you replied, "I'm simply amazed that you want us to accept your credibility, and yet use just one source, and one that is unnecessarily out date."

Yes, I'm sure that was it. Kieth wasn't writing a column, he was publishing a textbook.
Sorry, Its just so ironic!

Keith have you made the assumption that those who don't agree with your conclusions must not be thinking critically? Or are you saying that all critical thinkers must arrive at the same conclusion? Having read both articles I think you made it clear where you stand, but it is a stretch to think or suggest that all must concur with your opinions and if not they lack the ability to think critically...

Clay
Does the 5th and 4th paragraphs respecively from this blog answer your queries?

"Before I continue, let me be clear on what I am not saying. I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is inept when it comes to critical thinking. Neither am I suggesting that if a person engaged in a critical process he or she would concur with my conclusions. I am simply saying that some of the rebuttals given do not measure up to the analytical standard with which some claim to be judging my article."

"Yes, I do read the comments, but purposely choose not to intervene. It would be futile to reply to every dissenter with arguments that were already in the commentary. The truth is, many of my responses would probably have sounded like the British Prime Minister’s occasional refrain during his weekly question time: “I refer the honorable gentleman/lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.”

Michael,
Thank you for pointing out those statements (yes I did read them), however it seems to me that the rest of the article contradicts what those statements suggest.... which is why I asked....

"long-standing Adventist problem that those Adventist with theological training are thus qualified to be not only to theology teachers and pastors, but also businessmen, academic administrators, investors, accountants and auditors, etc. Our denomination has repeatedly suffered failure and scandal because of the insistence which you repeat that a theologian is prepared to function in and speak to any topic"

This needs repeating: too long we have deferred to the advanced theological degree-holder as the last word on every possible subject. This is demonstrated currently in the ongoing debate at LSU over "evolution" being taught.

When will Adventism grow up and begin respecting its academicians, businessmen, and specialists in their respective areas; rather than being overridden, ignored, or even disciplined by those who have little or no knowledge of the vocational responsibilities of others. It degrades the theological degree in a most unhealthy manner.

Amazingly hard to get past such ill informed introductory comments as this:

--
To put it bluntly, my lament is over the rampant inability of some to undertake the arduous task of critically assessing the foundations and assumptions behind their firmly held positions. This cognitive lethargy is shamefully exhibited in the current Republican schizophrenics who articulate opposition to government run healthcare while advocating the strengthening of Medicare.
--

That is an example of not thinking critically. Because medicare can't run without losing money (projected bankrupt in 2018, though bankrupt for the government multiple trillions in debt is kind of meaningless) and restricting benefits we should accept the expansion of a failing system. Of course Republicans want to fix medicare...duh you try getting elected after cutting off an entitlement that has been going on for 40-50 years. I could not manage to read any further...maybe later right now the author has little credibility.

Take some time and learn to actually think critically, read John Stossel's book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity
http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Lies-Downright-Stupidity-Everything/dp/B000Y...

It should be required reading...now more than ever.

Ron

Those who have been following my columns know that I am not in the habit of responding to comments. While other Spectrum columnists have chosen to engage their readers, I have taken a position similar to those who write opinion editorials. I have been asked to reconsider my stance, but as I mention in the fourth paragraph of this essay, many of the issues raised by those who disagree with my thesis have already been addressed in the column itself. Additionally, as the final paragraph reveals, I believe that the discussion is healthier when different voices are allowed to offer their opinion about the strength or weakness of the argument.

Admittedly, I am sorely tempted to personally respond to those who have chosen to misconstrue my words or have a hidden agenda totally unrelated to my thesis. However, after reading some of the comments that have been posted thus far, I believe I have made a wise decision.

May God's peace be upon you.

There are many dimensions to critical thinking, but two are essential.

Lateral thinking in which all the possible options or alternatives are put on the table. That is what a physician does in listing the possible illnesses that present the symptoms or complaints of the patient.

Vertical thinking in which each option is considered in detail for best fit. This may require close examination, diagnostic tests, patient progress, and responses.

Thus each option is either ruled in or out, until a final
diagnosis is determined and a rational treatment plan is adopted.

Critical thinking is the opposite of "jumping to conclusions".

That is why immediate classification is such a villian--it prejustices all subsequent thought.

I got a call several nights ago, soon after I had fallen asleep. The Voice said: "You don't want Congress to decide medical care for you do you?" I said, "It would be a better option than have you decide for me! Your not looking for my answer you are looking for my money! How do I know you can spend it better than I can?"

Truman tried to get National Health Care into law in 1948. The Republicans prevented it. Now look what we have--so we have 60 years experience learning what doesn't work. Isn't it time to attempt to control the arrogance of fat cat insurance underwriters that have run wild since they beat Clinton 16 years ago. Besides, unless there is a fire, don't call me at night after I have fallen asleep. If you have no better sense of time, I am sure you have little sense about money." Good Night!

My queston is where has common sense gone? Isn't that the bottom-line for thinking. Tom

You said, "Those who advocate the “because I said so” approach to education fail to recognize that the “I” can undergo a paradigm shift." How true. But your position on homosexuality and the notion of sin fails to recognize that the "we" can undergo a total change in nature. Culturally, humans have undergone a paradigm shift. We are not the same today as we were when we first appeared on this planet. But you insist, through your position on homosexuality, that we have not, and that homosexuality is the product of a few deviants who have become outliers to the standard distribution. You fail to account for the fact that the entire distribution may have slipped to the left (or right) rather than that a few may have caused it to be skewed to the left (or right).

Then, there is your needed assumption that the Bible is "the" Word of God. You have consistently refused to revisit that assumption so that you now stand on it as fact. Are you not in this following "the party line"? If you believe that everything ascribed to the Creator in the Bible has been correctly so done you have fallen into the same trap as those who unthinkingly follow authorities, except that your authorities are "ancient goat herders" instead of modern Kool-aid dispensers.

One Race, Indivisible.

A locked ideological system is never going to be the best place to look for critical thinkers. The Adventist emphasis on higher education has given the denomination a great number of highly qualified people in many academic and professional fields but the fundamentlist sanctions against pursuing truth wherever it might lead has resulted in a church characterized by intellectual anemia. You have people like Fritz Guy who whisper at the top of their voice but to become a Ron Numbers you still have to leave the intellectual confines of the church.

Dr. Burton, instead of hovering and making a virtue of turning the other cheek (until your next column), I'd be interested in your views of the following syllogistic incursion into your fields of expertise:

1. The Bible, both testaments, disapprove strongly of homosexual behavior, placing it on the same level as horrendous crimes such as murder.

2. The Bible, both testaments, approve of slavery in unambiguous terms.

Therefore, since today's Christians abhor the very thought of slavery and would not even think of using the Bible's approval as an endorsement of the practice, Christians should in the same way be able to set aside the Bible's condemnation of the idea that our gay friends are not entitled to a sex life.

Aage

Approve slavery in unambiguous terms is over the top.

The Bible acknowledges slavery as a human condition and sets standards of humane treatment. That is a far cry from approval. Tom

The "human condition" is always relevant to a time period. Polygamy was the "human condition" once as was slavery; women as possessions, of either father or husband, once was; death at childbirth for at least 25-30% of mothers was once the "human condition; leprosy made one ostracized and untouchable, and adultery and sabbath-breaking were once "human conditions" often resulting in death.

Have we not advanced since those ancient times and are willing to accept that what once were deemed "human conditions" are now much better understood. That homosexuality as a condition from birth was unknown in those times, just as bacteria, viruses, and that humans were not inevitably controlled by the heavenly bodies.

If we are unable to distance ourselves from ancient practices and their level of knowledge, we have descended to the aboriginal state. Using the Bible as the answer to every one of life's conundrums is to abuse the reason for its existence: which is to tell us how the Hebrews lived and thought, how the early Christian church began its formation. But to go no further is to limit ourselves in a manner that no one is ready to adopt.

Tom
I'll grant you that Bible writers implicitly acknowledge that slavery was not a good thing, otherwise the Torah would not mandated the manumission of slaves at certain intervals, nor would Paul have had to urge New Testament era slaves to put up with their condition. But no Biblical writer took offense at the institution of slavery as such. Paul even considered it the Christian duty of Onesimus, the runaway slave (Epistle to Philemon) to return to his Christian massa. The implication is that it was consistent with God's will that people live out their lives in slavery, if that was their condition in life.

As Elaine says, I'm sure that the Bible writers took slavery for granted, that it was seen as the way society dealt with certain categories of people, and that the way of the world was seen as the way of God, the way Republicans do today, but I find it easier to believe that the Bible writers often were at odds with God on a number of issues.

Aage

Thank you, but strange you didn't include Paul's admonish to Philemon to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother. Isn't that the primary point of the letter? Tom

Keith, just as you accuse people of misreading you, you do the same while you read through the comments. Those invoking the belief of Bishop Desmond Tutu were not doing so for the reasons you say above. They were actually responding to other messages in the discussion, not directly to your article. Perhaps there are a lot more thinkers responding to your post than you thought.

And I noticed that you didn't even mention any of the non-thinking nonsense spewed forth by a few of those who agreed with you. I guess those non-thinkers didn't merit a mention? Interesting.

Paul even considered it the Christian duty of Onesimus, the runaway slave (Epistle to Philemon) to return to his Christian massa.
Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 12 September 2009 at 10:12
People who have researched this topic have suggested that there are many types of "slavery" in ancient times.
One type was an indentured servatude where a person or a persons guardian "sold" them for a specific set of tasks for a specific time.
The grounds that Paul suggested it was the Christian duty of Onesimus to return on were fulfillment of that contract.

Really. what does anyone here know about slaves in Israel? With the whole 7 year thing and the year of Jubilee, isn't it obvious that slavery was a much different thing than we all perceive it as?
Do you really think on a certain day all the slaves were free and the next morning everyone went around catching their slaves again?

AAge and Michael

Paul was advising both parties in the context of Romans 13.
It was the law. Yet he was advising them to obey the law in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. He was making no pronouncement on the practice of slavary. The letter is a letter of brotherly love not domination. Tom

Watch me slam my thumb with a hammer and then ask me what I think about the horrors of sexually exploiting children and you won't get much of an answer. Why? Because at that moment my own pain is so intense that I unable to attend to the suffering of others. I might even take offense at the suggestion that in some important ways their suffering parallels my own.

This is the only way I can make sense of Keith Burton's denial of the similarities between disciminating against persons on the basis of race and doing so on the basis of sexual orientation or practice or many other ethically irrelevant variables. Part of the solution would seem to be to strive for liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps Dr Burton can tell us how he acquired his PhD in New Testament AND Classical Rhetoric at Northwestern University, the title of his dissertation and under whose guidance he completed it.
http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/graduate/areas/index.html

Where have all the thinkers gone?

Looking for a box big enough to think in! Everyone talks about thinking outside of the box. Just as soon as someone tries, they get "boxed"!

The favorite box within Adventism is the question put first by Zedekiah when ever his was in deep trouble: "Is there any word from the Lord?" They would haul Jerimiah up out of the pit and ask for his opinion. Which, of course, they seldom liked.

The SDA application (At the LLU Board Meetings) was to answer an issue under open debate: "Is there any word from the Lord?" with a quote from Ellen White, usually extraneous to the issue under consideration. But, that quote relevant or not would quell all futher discussion. Thinking would be put on hold. The matter would be tabled and decided later behind closed doors.

Thinkers are generally maveriks, lonely souls without a porfolio.

A story: When I first joined the dental school at LLU, I was asked by the teacher of freshman radiology to give a lecture on Cephalometric radiography. I used an overhead projector throughout most of the lecture. About half way through the presentation. A voice in the back of the lecture hall asked a question. It was a simple question. Which I answered. That answer ws followed by a second more difficult question which I answered. That was followed by a third much more difficult question. Prior to answering, I thought to my self--there is a very keen mind, but if he keeps this up in all of his classes he is going to find himself a pariah. I answered the final question, apparently satisfactorily for that ended the question and answer session.

Sure enough that student had great difficulty with a vast number of faculty. However, he progressed with his class.
During his Senior Year, the American Association of Dental Schools put on a science contest for dental students. A student or students could enter their project and be judged by a team of dental faculty from a wide selection of dental schools. The name of the contestant and the name of his or her school was deleted from the judges. My questioner, took first prize. After he graduated, I accepted him into my graduate class in Orthodontics. He became the tutor for dental students entering the research contest. Loma Linda took first prize year after year.

A number of yers later the graduate student having become a faculty member left for private practice--Loma Linda dropped its first place status--generally ending up in the winners circle at some level.

As a graduate student and as a new faculty member, the questioner gave the old timers fits with his--"What if's" and His "crazy" designs. A great mind, but very uncomfortable to be around, unless you enjoyed challenges. Tom

Joselito, I checked the link and I'm also puzzled.

Michael
I can appreciate the fact that your faith does not allow you to believe that the Bible endorses slavery as we know it but how can you avoid that conclusion if you read Yahweh's slave laws in Exodus ch. 21? 'Humane' is not the first word that springs to mind.

Tom,

What I appreciate about your experiences among SDA administration and schools is that you "experienced" them and see the warts.

It is sometimes quite uncomfortable to see warts and we immediately have PR people to present a smiley face. I believe maturity comes by addressing problems openly.

I believe based on audience maturity discretion is used in content but there must exist an open forum somewhere to discuss real problems without simply being a "yes man" to the powers that be.

Of course, our individual observations are subjective and even here there is the need for "reality checks." It is true that there are "better" subjective observations given by some.

regards,
pat

Aage

Read Paul. Read the words of Jesus--to set men free!

God never intended one man to own another--I think the Bible is a lot more clear on God's intent then you are willing to accept.

If you were owned by someone else--I am sure you would read the Scriptures in a different light. Tom

Michael said: People who have researched this topic have suggested that there are many types of "slavery" in ancient times.
One type was an indentured servatude where a person or a persons guardian "sold" them for a specific set of tasks for a specific time.
The grounds that Paul suggested it was the Christian duty of Onesimus to return on were fulfillment of that contract.
Really. what does anyone here know about slaves in Israel? With the whole 7 year thing and the year of Jubilee, isn't it obvious that slavery was a much different thing than we all perceive it as?
Do you really think on a certain day all the slaves were free and the next morning everyone went around catching their slaves again?

Likewise, people who have researched what the Bible says about same-sex behavior have concluded that it is referring to specific kinds of same-sex behavior having to do with idolatry, rape and exploitive sex. That is not just my prejudiced viewpoint, but the conclusions of many highly qualified theologians whose essays I have read.

Mr. Burton also asserts that there is no concensus on what causes homosexuality. The fact is, there IS a growing concensus among scientific researchers that a fluctuation of fetal hormones at crucial points of development (which may have a variety of causes) is basic to a homosexual orientation. If Mr. Burton kept up-to-date on the latest research he might be aware of this.

I think Mr. Burton's ability to use big words and put down anyone who disagrees with him, leads one to doubt his academic open-mindedness.

Very good Tom.
The Lord said he made concessions to men due to their hard hearts even concerning marriage. I would suspect that there may be some parallels in the slave or indentured servant arena as well.
This does not mean he endorsed or approved of it any more than he did putting a wife away for any reason her husband wanted.

Michael (Thank you)

I believe that one should read the Lord's instruction to Moses as how much He hates people going into debt beyond their ability to repay. He also hates anyone who reneges on their pledge. At the same time, He set limits on the retribution to debtors. Enough is enough all ready!

It was a comparatively brutal foreclosure system--debtors prison was only slightly if any better.

One can not construe God's limits as God's approval. Tom

I repeat (from the last discussion) a very illuminating comment to me, from a friend who has two sons, one straight and one gay:

"If you have loved someone who gay, it changes your mind."

Although I myself do not have a gay child, I gather that one reason for what my friend told me is this: When you love a child and watch him or her grow up, you realize—in a full-blooded way—that a person doesn't DECIDE to be gay or straight. That is something that just dawns on you. I suppose it happens at the point of sexual awakening, as when erotic dreams first come into play.

As for sexual "addiction," that may happen to straight people or gay people alike: the possibility is no respecter of orientations.

And if all this is so, and sexual orientation is no choice, then it cannot possibly be something you could elect to change, any more that you could elect to have curly hair instead of straight.

In this light, it’s important to see again that the moral revolution that comes through in the Bible (when read Christocentrically--see Hebrews 1:1-4)is this: God's faithful ought NEVER to make judgments against people because they have some trait or other (such as gender or nationality or race or orientation) concerning which they have no control. Nor should having such a trait ever be the basis for excluding people from some God-given domain of human flourishing.

Thus Keith has made a case (with respect to homosexuality) that no one can adequately defend.

Unless we read the Bible in such a way as to permit honoring the (true) deliverances of empirical observation, we have no future as a movement; sooner or later, after all, obscurantists fade into the sunset. And often, they leave behind a chilling detritus of broken hearts and wounded families.

What is encouraging about this conversation is that on both sides--most certainly on Keith's--a basic respect for argument seems to hold. Without that—or better, without the passion for the truth for which argument is one means--there would be no hope.

Keith Burton, where is that "scientific article" in the CMAJ by bonafide scientist Peter Sullivan?

Keith writes:

Had they done their research, they would have seen that bonafide scientist Peter Sullivan also drew fire for coming to the same conclusion in his 1984 scientific article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The problem is that there is no article on that topic in the CMAJ by Peter Sullivan, although there are two short letters by him.

There's one letter in February in which he tosses out an idea and a shorter letter in October where he reacts to someone.

That's it.

There is no "scientific article" by Peter Sullivan on the topic, as Keith claims.

Here are the letters, (one of which Googles up on homosexuality and addiction very easily.)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=144435

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1483737&pageindex...

Re: Keith.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they write a whole article asking where all the thinkers have gone and yet they get their one cited source wrong while trying to cloak their soundly dismissed opinion with scientific prestige.

Keith's commentary includes several gross logical fallacies and is sans quotes when referring to others who used quotes of him in their comments previously, as is standard academic practice. (Note what I did above.)

But even worse is when Keith, while whining about the loss of careful thinking and argumentation refers to an scientific article that does not exist.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell, having looked through the 1984 abstracts, there is no "scientific" article in the CMAJ that directly supports Keith's bizarre theories about the gays being homosexual because of sexual addiction.

Where have all thinkers gone? How about we start with getting people to read carefully and get their sources right, especially when writing under the Spectrum banner? You know, telling the difference between a letter and a peer-reviewed scientific article. . .

Sources:

The letters by Peter Sullivan.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1483737

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=144435

The database search of everything published in CMAJ by Peter Sullivan.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/search?sendit=Search&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstp...

I hope that I'm wrong, but it appears that Keith called a letter a scientific article in an commentary in which he complains about other people not thinking.

The Spectrum community expects and deserves better.

BRAVO, Alex. For those of us who have struggled writing either a thesis or dissertation, such sloppy "documentation" would deserve an "F." That it is presented from someone who claims to have doctorates which has been questioned, this information seriously discredits his writing.

A letter, quoted as an "article" in a reputable journal is worse than sloppy, it is disengenuous and you are to be congratulated for disclosing it to Spectrum readers.

The last post by Elaine goes way too far - citing a letter to the editor as a "scientific article" is indeed disingenuous, unless it's just shoddy. But who has questioned that Keith Burton has a doctorate? His dissertation has been published as a monograph, so I am pretty sure it exists! And if Elaine means to question whether a Northwestern University PhD is genuine, then that's just strange, since it's famously a superb university.
Criticize Dr Burton for what he does wrong - don't cast aspersions.

Further to the last post - a search of standard databases of dissertations and theses shows that Keith Burton was awarded a PhD by Northwestern in 1994, for a dissertation entitled "'So that you may be with another': The status of nomos in the mystical life of the believer in the rhetoric of analogy in Romans 7:1-6".

The point is the CMAJ reference.

It was another poster here who questioned his doctorate in NT, which was not shown on the school he attended. I didn't make the assertion, merely repeated the unanswered question.

I don't see how the CMAJ article mixup has any relevance. Steve was writing an article in Spectrum. It is fair to say that he was relying on his memory when he cited the Sullivan manuscript. That does not mean his scholarship is shoddy. It only means he is overly enthusiastic about his position.

Several months ago I was a visitor in Roy Adams Sabbath School class. Aftr I introduced myself he added that I had written for the Review. That piece of information was surprising to me because I have only had letters publishd in the Review. I would not say that one who writes a letter to the editor has written for the publication but I would not accuse my Roy Adams of being sloppy?

What I do find amusing is the vitriol directed by Keith by some who embrace the same type of theology that produced his type of thinking.

One Race, Indivisible.

Yes, the CMAJ letter IS the issue, which is why we shouldn't go around accusing Burton of being deceptive about his doctorate.
And Satrei, by "scientific article" Dr Burton meant more than a letter - he meant an article which had been anonymously read by at least two other scientists who critiqued it before it was published - without their agreement that it was scientifically sound (even if they disagreed with it), it would not have been published. Dr Burton IS a scholar and a PhD, and knows that this is what his terminology would imply, which is why if no such articles exist, to call letters "scientific articles" is either misleading or poor scholarship - and going on memory alone, for a published article (rather than a comment, like we are posting) is poor, esp. when flying the flag of critical thinking and scholarship.

I was disappointed when I saw this article by Keith- a snarky column response to comments on his column- because I felt that posting it as a column and not a comment seemed like an unnecessary escalation but Alex's snarky comment turned blog post response to the snarky column response to comments on a column takes us further into the morass.

1. I'm grateful that Alex checked this reference. His report clarifies something that otherwise perplexed me.

2. Whatever else we might want to say about it, Keith's column establishes that, contrary to what one often hears, "Spectrum" posts more than one point of view on important matters.

3. Refusing to interact with those who comment on what one has written might leave the impression that one has nothing to learn from others. This has not been my experience.

Normally, editors check issues in material to be published before publishing it.

This must be a first. A writer submits an article, the editor prints it. The editor then checks the references [edits it] and blames the writer. The editor becomes responsible once the material is in print. That's why writers have editors. Anyone blaming the problem on sloppy editing?

Of course Keith is being excoriated by gay sympathizers, partisans, advocates, gays themselves, and so forth.

By definition, the gay lifestyle exhibits addictive characteristics. Addiction is characterized by continuing a behavior once it is deemed harmful. AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts, even typhoid fever, are spread by irresponsible homosexual contact, yet the behavior doesn't stop.

Having interviewed an individual who admitted having risky sex after he knew his partner was HIV+, I can assure you that there is a self destructive, addictive component to gay sex very much like that exhibited by crystal meth users and junkies

Drinking the gay koolaid is a very adequate description of what goes on in the community. The fact that there are some responsible gays who avoid the "gay scene" doesn't mean that most do.

Take a look at the gay ads on Craig's list sometime. Then take a look at the ads for people looking for "normal" heterosexual relationships. Sure, there are prostitutes and "swingers" on Craig's list. They have a separate category. Gays are gays. It is assumed that someone placing or responding to a gay ad is not looking for a long term, monogamous relationship.

Run a Google search using the terms "sexual addiction gay." Take a look at what turns up.

On Keith's column/comment and Alex's comment/blog,
What's wrong with comments? Why couldn't Keith comment on his first column? Because he doesn't respond in the comment section but through a new column? Makes no sense to me. Why did Alex repost his comment as a blog post? Because his calling out Keith deserves a wider audience (front page, feeds, facebook) than what a comment provides?

My honest questions,
If knowing a homosexual means one recognizes that homosexuality is innate and not a choice, so what?

I want to understand how Chuck can argue that sexual expression is a right. Or, what does "nor should having such a trait ever be the basis for excluding people from some God-given domain of human flourishing" mean?

Spiritual violence is a very real problem- the way we've spoken, and speak, about homosexuality has been and still often is not Christlike. John Nixon and Greg King said as much in the "Compassion and Clarity" talk they had on homosexuality on the Southern Adventist University campus. I don't think the following question takes away from that reality.

How should we live? Christian community is in, through and with Jesus Christ. Our life together isn't comfortable or permissive, it is alienating and demanding.

I've had a short life, sure, but I struggle to understand how the desire gays and lesbians feel towards sex is any different from my desire to have sex. There are many Adventists who don't have children and there are many who never married. Not being married doesn't make you less whole anymore than not having children makes you less of a woman (or man).

I want to understand how one could read scripture and come to the conclusion that homosexual marriage not celibacy is advised. I want to understand how one could read scripture and come to the conclusion that sex outwith monogamous heterosexual marriage is what God intended.

I did not read the piece entitled “Civil Rights and Savage Wrongs” until after reading this current article Having now read that piece of intellectual drivel I too am compelled to cry out “WHERE HAVE ALL OUR THINKERS GONE?!”

As a proud South African I am offended that one might suggest that our constitution is nothing more than the “uncritical embrace of the uncivil agenda of western liberals”. I am however far more offended that one might defend this load of rubbish as being well reasoned, or as the product of critical thought.

When Hansen says that "By definition, the gay lifestyle exhibits addictive characteristics" he fails to note that the normative can never be considered to be addictive. There is no question that homosexuality is an anomaly when placed against what must have existed in exclusion at our origins. But so is modern diet. The first humans did not eat sushi or veggie links. Compared to them these diets are anomalies meaning that those who cannot eat without consuming those delights are engaging in addictive behavior.

One Race, Indivisible.

Hansen interviewed a homosexual and is now an expert on all things gay. Nothing new there. Strange how some seem to think that gay sex magically creates an STD and then spreads it, when the truth is, you can have all the gay sex you want and if you don't have it with someone who has an STD, then you are not going to contract an STD. (That's not to say that STD's and HIV in particular are not more common in the gay community, at least among men...lesbians may be another story, though).

Ramirez, one could easily, easily, read scripture and come to the conclusion that sex without monogamous heterosexual marriage is what God intended. In fact, if I had first come to the bible without drinking the 'fundamentalist coolaid' (hey, if we can call it the glbt coolaid...) then I would have been sure that God not only approved of polygamy, but would bless me with more wives if I pleased him.

http://www.narth.com/docs/chaser.html

Further to the last post - a search of standard databases of dissertations and theses shows that Keith Burton was awarded a PhD by Northwestern in 1994, for a dissertation entitled "'So that you may be with another': The status of nomos in the mystical life of the believer in the rhetoric of analogy in Romans 7:1-6".
Posted by: David Trim | 14 September 2009 at 12:19

Looks like Dr Burton did get his PhD in classical rhetoric. IMHO, his dissertation hardly counts for a dual PhD in New Testament as well. Far from it. This is in contrast to Des Ford who first received his PhD in rhetoric from Michigan State U and later went on for a second PhD in New Testament at Manchester University.

I'm copying and pasting for the sake of those whose reference to science requires an an update by a recognized specialist in the field:

... the relationship between homosexuality and biology, if any, is certainly very complex. "Biology" as a causative agent can mean different things to different people: sex hormone levels in the adult; the hormones or other factors during early brain development of a fetus in utero or soon after birth; or the genes for some factor affecting the brain that's involved with gender identity. A behavior pattern as complex and variable as homosexuality cannot possibly be due to a single altered gene or even several genes alone. Many women have lived happy heterosexual lives for a number of years before changing to a lesbian orientation. This is clearly non-deterministic, in contrast to the genetic factors that cause, say, cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease or Down syndrome. On the other hand, homosexuality as a way of life is so compelling to so many gay people, including myself, that it seems unlikely to this biologist that it can be due wholly to social factors completely divorced from biology.

My own discipline is endocrinology, the study of hormones. The growth of endocrinology as a discipline during the first half of the 20th century fascinated the public (Schwartz, 2001). The idea that an infinitesimal amount of a chemical circulating in the bloodstream could mean the difference between life and death, as in the case of insulin, or the difference between normal intelligence and cretinism, as in the case of thyroid hormone, was mind-boggling. The endocrine hypothesis for homosexuality started in this period when it was demonstrated that many of the overt characteristics that we call "male" or "female" in animals and in people (genitalia, fat distribution, height, hair distribution, etc.) are the result of the post-pubertal estrogen secreted during the menstrual cycle in the adult female or the testosterone secreted in the adult male. It was perhaps natural that people began assuming that homosexuality itself was due to the "wrong" hormones being present in the adult homosexual. To my knowledge, there are no definitive data that show this to be at all true. That is, there is no evidence that gay men have lower or higher testosterone or lower or higher estrogen levels than heterosexual men. Similarly, there are no reliable data on circulating sex hormone differences between lesbians and heterosexual women.

-Genes, hormones, and sexuality
Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, The, Jan-Feb, 2008 by Neena B. Schwartz
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_1_15/ai_n29401771/?tag=c...

deleted - website editor

As I posted on "is god good" once someone starts making apologetics for genocide, they no longer can even be taken seriously as having anything to say remotely relating to ethics. Much less be an "expert"!!! How many theologians would say the following phrase necessary to have anything remotely relevant to add to an ethics discussion:

"The genocide of the Canaanites was unethical and anyone who ordered it was behaving unethically"

Pretty much the only names I can think of who would be ok with that would be Levinas and Derrida. Not likely in Adventist theological circles

Kieth posted his piece and viewed it as a column in a newspaper. Just because the medium is different does not mean there are different standards. One is not required to answer anyone's questions nor be at anyone's beckon call.
In fact Keith states his primary purpose in not responding is the redundant referrals back to what he has already explained and this has been proven many times as I have witnessed.

Keith's column here is a clarification of his thoughts in the first piece as well as a response to posts in that piece.
Agree with him or not, that is fine.
However the most unfortunate part is not Keith's mention of a document in a post nor Alexander Carpenters snarky and sanctimonious post. It is the republishing, as its own blog, Alexander Carpenters snarky and sanctimonious post.
I dont know anything about the particular article but Alex's assertion that if one cant find it on google it doesn't exist far outstrips any logical errors he accused Keith of.
Perhaps Alex should link us all to his scholarly papers on analogical argumentation and deductive reasoning.

Jamie,
Interesting. I asked what was intended not what was inferred or practiced. I understand that polygamy has been practiced but I don't see polygamy in Eden, I don't see polygamy spoken of in relation to our marriage with Christ as a church nor do I see the apostles or the Christ advocating for polygamy.

Paul not only says that marriage is advisable because it is good, but also because the sexual urge is so great that it's better to express that urge within marriage than without. Or, if temptation is too great. But is he advising Christians who lust to create an institution which can bless and give license to the expression of that lust?

There is in itself no sin in eating and drinking, or in marrying and giving in marriage. It was lawful to marry in the time of Noah, and it is lawful to marry now, if that which is lawful is properly treated and not carried to sinful excess. But in the days of Noah men married without consulting God or seeking His guidance and counsel. . . . {AH 121.3}
The fact that all the relations of life are of a transitory nature should have a modifying influence on all we do and say. In Noah’s day it was the inordinate, excessive love of that which in itself was lawful, when properly used, that made marriage sinful before God. There are many who are losing their souls in this age of the world by becoming absorbed in the thoughts of marriage and in the marriage relation itself. {AH 121.4}
The marriage relation is holy, but in this degenerate age it covers vileness of every description. It is abused and has become a crime which now constitutes one of the [BEGIN P.122] signs of the last days, even as marriages, managed as they were previous to the Flood, were then a crime. . . . When the sacred nature and the claims of marriage are understood, it will even now be approved of Heaven; and the result will be happiness to both parties, and God will be glorified. {AH 121.5}

Joselito, a couple of thoughts regarding your post about hormones. First of all, it is not the hormones circulating in an adult that causes homosexuality, but rather the amount of male hormones circulating in the womb at the time sexual attraction is hard-wired in the brain. Also, the reference to woman living happily in a heterosexula marriage and then becoming lesbian. overlooks the fact that sexual feelings are usually more generalized in women, so it often takes longer for them to realize that their marriage is not what it should be. Furthermore, anyone who uses NARTH as an authority is outside the mainstream of science.

Unfortunately Carrol that is false.
Hormones at anytime can affect peoples thoughts, appearance and orientation.
This has been documented since the early 70's when the East Germans began doping their athletes.
Many people have the perception that steroids can make a female athlete look more masculine but few remember that the many East German women who were unknowingly doped by their doctors ended up with gender reassignment surgury.
That alone is not suprising since one of their biggest issues was the fact that they were female but looked male.
What is suprising is that many also ended up getting married.
The work on these cases is still trying determine what about steroid use made people turn gay.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/transcripts/doping-for-gold-program-tran...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=117&art_id=vn200504010...

Michael, I suspect Carrol was speaking 'in general' about a contributing cause of homosexuality...I think steroid use aftewards is probably a whole other issue, and not one that 'in general' causes homosexuality.

And Carrol, the drive by NARTHings certainly help me understand how some people debate by taking either one individual's situation or an extreme practice and then applying it to gays in general. For example, the NARTH link above reports on 'bug-chasers' in the gay community (describing someone who tries, on purpose, to become infected with HIV)...and readers of NARTH materials seem to take away from that article that MOST gays are 'bug-chasers', which is simply not true.

I tire of people using statistics to come to un-reasoned conclusions. According to some statistics black gay men have a significantly increased risk of HIV infection. If I were to use the reasoning that some here have used, I would have to suggest that while being gay is a sin, being gay and black is even MORE of a sin. (I hope most people can see how ridiculous that type of reasoning is).

More to the topic at hand, I think it is perfectly fine for Keith to write an article and leave it at that. I don't believe he owes us an explanation, since he spelled out his thoughts clearly for us in his article (even if I happen to think those thoughts are pretty wrong-headed).

Ramirez, obviously there was no polygamy in the garden of Eden story...it's pretty hard to have more than one wife if there is only one woman on the planet. And the metaphor of Jesus marriage to the church seems to suggest polygamy on a grand scale, since the church is made up of MILLIONS!

Johnny,
I think you are asking a very good question and I'll try and answer it from my perspective.

I agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Now whether it was addressing an understanding of gay love and orientation or just condemning fooling around, I'll leave to others, but I tend to get uncomfortable with trying to read large amounts into texts to make them work for today's understandings. Not everything in the Bible was written in such a way as to make it fully applicable and pertinent to today.

Having said that, I take seriously Jesus' words that loving God and loving neighbor are the most important rules. Everything must be considered through that spectrum. And there is no doubt that there are many things in the Bible, both OT and NT, that we now consider either unloving or unnecessary burdens without rational justification.

A couple of examples. Circumcision was clearly meant in the OT to signify God's bond with His people, (well men anyway.) It was to be a bond for all time. Jesus was circumcised. Then Paul comes along and shrugs. He overrides the commandment as being unnecessary due to new understanding.

Our understanding of women's roles has also shifted from Paul's time due to our understanding of what is loving. I believe that the NT is quite clear that women are to be subservient to men. I also think that this is unloving and thus needs to be reevaluated.

We can't be tossing things out willy nilly of course but when we take what the Bible says without also weighing things through the most important commandment that Jesus himself gave us, we get into big trouble. I think homosexual marriage fits in this category.

Single straight people always have the hope of marriage if they want it. I believe something like 95% of people eventually marry during their lifetimes. As someone who was happily single until 27 and now happily married for 15 years, I have to say that being married is something I can't imagine denying to anyone unless there was a very good reason.

The question to be asked is, "Is it loving to say homosexuals cannot fall in love and express that love sexually in marriage?" To me, the answer is no. It is true that Christianity is not just about what feels good or what we want. Discipline and sacrifice are often called for. But we are called, first and foremost, to be loving. We must be sure we aren't sacrificing the wrong things and being unloving in the process.

Beth
You're right. Paul did not have a single scripture available to him indicating that God had decided to abandon the Torah and its external mark, circumcision. It was indeed based on a new understanding on his part. Righly or wrongly he declared "the Law", the Torah, as not applying to believers outside of Judaism (Epistle to the Galatians). But he had no "word of God" to go by.

For those who believe that Paul had direct access to God that may not be an issue, but what happened in this case, is what happened to our rejection of slavery and the subordination of women (described implicitely as property in the 10th commandment). Both were set aside as inconsistent with the values of the time. Slavery and segregation and non-voting rights for women, once passionately embraced by Christians in many Western countries, were not uprooted by Bible verses but by values deemed inconsistent with these verses.

We're in the midst of a historical process that's doing the same to our view of homosexuals. I have no patience with those who suggest that the harsh condemnation of gays found in the Bible are, on closer inspection, not applicable to today's gay community. The words and the attitude behind them can not be mistaken but that doesn't mean that they can be justified or that we need to cling to them.

Michael, it's true that hormones can cause physical changes. I know men being treated with female hormones for prostate cancer who have hot flashes! That doesn't make them gay. Gayness/homosexuality has to do with who they are attracted to. Yes there was one case in that article of a woman who was given so much testosterone that she looked like a man and decided to have a sex change - one person out of the thousands of East German athletes. Doping is a terrible crime against humanity. But it is not the cause of homosexuality.

Yes there was one case in that article of a woman who was given so much testosterone that she looked like a man and decided to have a sex change - one person out of the thousands of East German athletes. But it is not the cause of homosexuality.

Posted by: Carrol Grady | 14 September 2009 at 6:53
Carrol
Please
It wasn't just one girl. It was 23 that they have found.
I didn't say that hormones made them all gay. Only an alarming percentage. Its only through that unintended consequence that people have started asking questions in that area.
Further there is work being done with hormone therapy to adjust brain chemical levels that are influencing homosexual tendencies.

So, If there is a little testosterone in the womb your only a little gay? I guess that bisexual would come from neutral wombs then and lesbians from only hyper estrogen wombs?

Really if its that simple just create a new test of embryonic fluid and add hormone as needed. If you really believed what you say is the cause they why not advocate for research and monitoring of these hormone levels in pregnant women instead of gay marraige?

Because, Michael, there is nothing wrong with being gay. It's not a disease that needs cured or genetically engineered out of society. We have a place here. I can't answer for Carrol, but I know the reason that I'd advocate for gay marriage instead is because I don't want to live in a Huxleyian "Brave New World" where such pesky traits are just genetically manipulated out of us because too many are squeamish around gays.

If God doesn't want gays around then He is perfectly capable of manipulating hormones, or whatever He needs to, to get rid of us.

But Michael, I should add that I agree that the hormone theory *alone* does not explain homosexuality. I think it may be a piece of the puzzle, but I think it is more complex than that. For example, along with that theory is the theory that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. Statistically, that is true. But I have two older sisters and no brothers and I still 'caught it'!

Aage Rendalen, my reference was to http://icanhascheezburger.com/ and internet speak for people who are too puffed up and take themselves too seriously and as experts at everything.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Keith's race, but rather his hubris.

I know what I wrote earlier, but I have purposely chosen to "yield to [the] temptation" to respond. Like my mentor the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 11, I am suspending wisdom for a moment and putting on my fool's hat. My "fool" button has been pushed by one who should know better, for--assuming I received correct information during my orientation--he is supposed to be a Spectrum editor. This does not mean that he is not entitled to an opinion, but I expect that a person in his position should be able to defend his position without resorting to mudslinging and public defamation. I have sent him a link to "one" of the articles that reference the Carpenter piece, and I leave it to him to respond in a mature manner.

While I wear my fool's hat (I just watched "The Hunchback of Notre Dame last night!), let me just remind those castigators of my credentials that the section in bold at the end of my column is called a "by-line." When I write on Africa, I mention my role with the "Sabbath in Africa Study Group." When I present on preaching, I mention my preaching experience. When I write on rhetoric.... I'm sure you get the picture.

Bear with my foolish thoughts for a moment longer. Am I really supposed to be intimidated by pseudo-psychic pseudonymous sensationalists who have to twist my words or pretend to know what my motives are in order to sound wise in their own eyes? Or, should I be embarrassed by a person with vested interested in this subject who claims to be an expert in critical thinking who does not appear to know that an academic degree is not the only thing that determines the "authority of the author"? Does he expect me to believe that only Ivy League doctoral fellows are authorized to address the subject of addiction? Is he really to be taken seriously when he discounts the voices of those who have experienced the struggles associated with alcoholism, chemical dependency, overeating, pornography and [yes] homosexuality?

I'm really sounding foolish now but the hats still on my head, so let me continue. What am I supposed to think when a person conjures the spirits of the adherents of the "Pauline Mandate" to concoct a very logical argument that suggests that anyone who accepts the biblical injunction against homosexuality must also embrace a White racist view of Black inferiority? No, these words were not used, but let's briefly analyze his syllogism. Statement "1" recalls the biblical teaching against homosexuality. Statement "2" conjures the "unambiguous" Biblical support for slavery. Unambiguous? Here's where the syllogism falls, as someone correctly pointed out. You see, one would have to agree with the premise in order to grant assent to the inference. Further--and this is where I had to really praise God for his exclusive right to avenge--why is this person as comfortable with using "slave" as a synonym for "Black person" as Joe Wilson is with using "You Lie" as a substitute for "You n----r"?

O what a fool I have been. Johnny Ramirez is correct. I should have refrained from utilizing my former column as fodder for this column. It is obvious that it is impossible to engage in a constructive dialogue on critical thinking with those who are unable to reason with logical clarity. If this subject is revisited, it would not be a bad idea for Spectrum to feature an online discussion (debate?) between two people. I would be more than willing to be one of them.

My fool's hat is about to slip off so I must stop this absurdity. Yes, I'm fully aware that some will continue the childish accusations as they're beguiled by illusions of profundity. I fully expect that others will hide their racist rantings under fallacious syllogisms. I know that an audacious number will admit their reprobate rejection of the Bible as a guide for moral living. And yes, I even suspect that some will lend me support with arguments that I may or may not agree with, or may or may not stand up to critical scrutiny. Nonetheless, in spite of how one responds, I can be confident that my conscience is clear before the Savior who loves and forgives me and every other sinner in the world.

May God's peace be with you.

KAB sayeth "it would not be a bad idea for Spectrum to feature an online discussion (debate?) between two people. I would be more than willing to be one of them."

Second that, with proposal for a (non confrontational) topic - 'Is it a good thing to fortify bread flour with folate?'

Jamie
I accept your perspective.
As to gay not needing to be cured.
It was my impression and correct me if I misunderstand, but I thought gays prayed for God to take it away and that they go through so much garbage that they say, no one would choose to be gay. At least I hear it as they defend their positions.
Have you heard it too? Do you know what I am refering too?

How does one reconcile the it doesnt need a cure position with the no one would choose to be gay position. If you wouldnt want anyone to have to go through the trials of homosexuality then why wouldnt you advocate for a cure instead of Gay marraige?

I hope I am clear on what I am asking.
Thanks

My limited understanding of the science is

(a) various hormonal and other events in the womb,
(b) various hormonal and other events out of the womb
(c) various experiences out of the womb,

**all** influence who one is attracted to, and how one chooses to express it.

I am interested to know which gender Hansen thinks Semenya can morally engage in sexual activity with, and why...

http://www.sportingnews.com/general/article/2009-09-11/tests-show-south-...

Anyone who thinks there is a simple solution to this issue beyond allowing any monogamous coupling is showing their ignorance. Approx 1 per 1000 babies has mixed gender characteristics

/Bevin

Alexander Carpenter is strongly committed to Spectrum second and Adventism firstly. I know this to be true as strongly as I know that his views on hot button issues like evolution and homosexuality define this website, and Spectrum, in misleading ways. David Larson is correct in saying that Keith proves wrong our critics who argue we are one sided.

Keith, you've taken a beating in comments, have been mischaracterized and attacked, but know that Alex has been there and then some. Not very encouraging right? This way of communicating is wrong. It is wrong for the tone used by some commenters to filter up to us as we compose posts. Spectrum deserves better and we as editors and columnists should do better.

/I know Alex believes this because we talked about it last week.

There is a lot of interesting rhetoric in Keith's comment, but I'm still waiting for an explanation regarding the CMAJ reference.

In fact, I have no idea what this all means.

This does not mean that he is not entitled to an opinion, but I expect that a person in his position should be able to defend his position without resorting to mudslinging and public defamation. I have sent him a link to "one" of the articles that reference the Carpenter piece, and I leave it to him to respond in a mature manner.

If there are links to articles, I haven't seen anything. . .

Going forward, when one claims "mudslinging and defamation," i.e., puts words in others' mouths, it is essential, particularly in an online world in which things tend to get misinterpreted and escalate, to include actual quotes.

Keith writes:

It is obvious that it is impossible to engage in a constructive dialogue on critical thinking with those who are unable to reason with logical clarity.

Shorter: logic does not work on the illogical.

Less tautological, and in line with Spectrum's online tradition of conversation, would be to actually reveal through argument and sourcing the error of their gays. : )

My point is that Keith wrote:

Among the commentators that relegated me to the pseudo-science camp were those who guffawed at my addiction theory. Had they done their research, they would have seen that bonafide scientist Peter Sullivan also drew fire for coming to the same conclusion in his 1984 scientific article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

I have not been able to find that "1984 scientific article" by Sullivan in the CMAJ (see documentation here) nor have I been able to understand how Keith can support his statement that Sullivan "drew fire" for it.

Michael, that is an excellent question and I thank you for the opportunity to answer it.

It's true that there was a time in my life where I prayed for the gay to go away. I wanted God to make me straight, and I would have said 'no one would choose to be this way'. The reason for this is because I thought that if I wasn't straight I would lose everything...my family, my culture...everything.

It took me a long time to realize that I really am okay as I am, and it took me a long time to get to a point where I am happy being gay. Sure, it still comes with its challenges, especially for those of us who tried to be straight for 40 years or so and have finally given up trying to be who we are not. But the peace that comes from not only accepting my self for who I am, but embracing who I am makes all the difference. I know longer feel like I want God to change me into a straight man. I am who I am and that is good.

If gay people were accepted in society, if we weren't afraid of losing our cultures, our family, and yes, even our religious life, then we wouldn't be praying to be straight. But being told, explicitly or implicitly, that we are not okay this way, being told that we are the lowest of the low...of course we pray to be straight. It's only when we reach the level of maturity that allows us to realize that what we were told was false, and that we are okay as we are do we stop praying that particular prayer.

Thank you for asking, and I appreciate the sincere spirit in which you seemed to pose your question.

Jamie
I see your thought process better now thanks.

As I read your remarks I can see a thought progression that starts out with resistance and denial, (The long time to become comfortable being gay) as you explained.
but then after;
"tried to be straight for 40 years or so and have finally given up trying to be who we are not. But the peace that comes from not only accepting my self for who I am, but embracing who I am makes all the difference. I know longer feel like I want God to change me into a straight man."

As with all internal human struggles, when circumstances cannot be changed, humans develop coping mechanisms. I can deeply understand the need to develop these because one cant live life with a self image one cannot embrace.

Does your perspective have anything to do with a coping mechanism or do you percieve it as something completely different?

Still for any problem there is a ultimate best solution isnt there? Would you still define that as God making you straight?

I dont see that you would be anyone but YOU with that change would you? I dont think anyone should live a life that is defined by his sexual preferences.
I mean if one is dead and they give a eulogy, we dont want to be eulogized by saying here lies our dear beloved gay Clarence do we? A life well lived would be related in ways other than sexual preferences wouldnt it?

Thanks for increasing our/my understanding by concenting to answer some questions.
Thanks again Jamie

Michael, the other side of the question is unaddressed: what of the circumstances that co-create a person's discomfort? Majority populations often ask minorities to adjust to social dsyfunction: "It is easier to turn a small boat than a big ship."

But sometimes the small boat is on course and the big ship is not.

Now for a very authoritative source. The American Psychological Association. Yes, some of you would not call it authoritative because you don't feel it agrees with what YOU think the Bible says. I anticipate that.

It is interesting to me that KAB has made no reference at all to this *current* authoritative information. I suppose that is because it does not support his opnion?

But consider this from the APA (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31:)

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?

Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.

comment deleted - website editor

Below are the “full” texts of the “articles” I reference from the Canadian Medical Association Journal (I use the term “article” to refer to a published piece in a printed collection). As you can see, the first article takes the form of a “brief note” in which Dr. Sullivan attempts to clarify his intent in an earlier “letter” (Can Med Assoc J 130/4 [February 15, 1984: 338]) in which he reports his thesis on “the parallels between the personal and social effects of chemical addiction and sexual obsession.” The second article listed below makes no reference to Sullivan’s earlier contribution, but is a critical and emotional response to his brief note

I will concede that my use of the term “scientific article” does suggest a heavily documented full length essay. Although Dr. Sullivan is indeed a scientist and the brief article appears in a scientific journal and is based on scientific observation, given its format my use of “scientific article” is indeed hyperbole, and for that I bare my back for Mr. Carpenter’s chastisement.

Nonetheless, my attempt at exaggerated emphasis which resulted in the rendering of misleading words should not alter the point I made (i.e. the view of homosexuality as an addiction is not unknown to the scientific community). I really don’t know Peter Sullivan’s current view on homosexual marriage, or the process that led him to his 1984 position. However, we do have documented evidence of his suggestion about the possibility of homosexuality being an addiction and the consequent fire he drew from three of his colleagues.

• Peter Sullivan, “Homosexuality: an addiction?” Can Med Assoc J 131/8 (October 15, 1984): 848.
  I am well aware of the gender spectrum within all of us. I am also well aware, pace Dr. Brian C. Willoughby (Can Med Assoc J 1984; 130: 1262, 1264), that homosexuality is still regarded as an aberration by the vast majority of the human race.

  The point at issue in my letter (130: 338) was the parallels between the personal and social effects of chemical addiction and of sexual obsession. I suggested that sexual
  obsession may be treated in a manner similar to that used for chemical addiction. I have since learned that such treatment programs have already been offered by chemical addiction
  treatment centres in the United States.
  PETER SULLIVAN, MB, CH B, DA
  49 High St., Ste. 204
  Barrie, Ont.

• J.R.M. Smith, D.J. Meen, and H.W. Backe, “Homosexuality: an addiction?” Can Med Assoc J 132/7 (April 1, 1985): 737–738.
  Sullivan (Can Med Assoc J 1984;131: 848) does seem confused about homosexuality. Presumably when he talks of "the gender spectrum" he means the spectrum of human sexual orientation, which is quite another matter.

  That the "vast majority" would currently regard homosexuality as aberrant is of what significance? Popular prejudice regarded slavery as normal until the advent of such pioneers as Bishop Wilberforce and David Livingstone. Left to extrapolate from their limited experience alone, the "vast majority" would probably still regard as natural a risk of famine, a high perinatal mortality rate and a life expectancy 20 to 30 years less than our own. They would certainly be unaware of the huge volume of published material on same-gender affectional and sexual preference emerging from the social sciences.

  It is not clear whether Sullivan believes homosexuality to be an obsessive disorder or an addiction. Either way he is certainly out of step with the American Psychiatric Association: the only mental disorder related to homosexuality that is recognized in the 1980 edition of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" is ego-dystonic homosexuality, which is the inability to accept one's homosexual arousal.

  Sullivan's error may derive from a mistaken impression that all homosexual men lead the much-publicized promiscuous, multiple-encounter lifestyle. In fact, a plurality of gay lifestyles exists, including bisexual expression, celibacy, monogamy, primary spousal relationships and a limited circle of regular sex partners.

  While both sexual compulsion and limerance addictions (romantic infatuation)may certainly occur, they do so in heterosexuals and homosexuals alike and in both genders. However, in caring for over 2000 homosexual men and a smaller number of lesbians in Winnipeg, we have encountered these problems in less than a handful of cases. Much more frequent is the profound disruption to our patients' lives caused by the corrosive effects of "homophobia". Difficulties in forming and maintaining relationships are among these effects.

  Finally, one must suppose that Sullivan is aware of how offensive the tone of his correspondence must be to the 5% to '10% of his colleagues who are homosexual and to the much larger number of Canadian physicians who have gay children, relatives and friends. It is unfortunate that his views are likely
  to preclude his openly meeting any of the thousands of homosexuals who are quietly pursuing the same personal and domestic goals as heterosexuals.

  J.R.M. Smith, MB, BS
  D.J. Meen, MEd
  H.W. Backe, BN
  Winnipeg Gay Community Health Clinic
  Winnipeg, Man.

Carrol,
The full article I referenced was not published by NARTH but in the Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide journal by Dr Neena B. Schwartz, professor emerita of neurobiology at Northwestern University. Two paragraphs later, on the same page, she also wrote:

In rodents such as mice and rats, the testis secretes hormones during prenatal life and immediately after birth. These androgens permanently alter the brain... If the same thing is true for humans, then maybe it is the prenatal hormonal environment that determines homosexuality. Rodents have been marvelous models for the way gonads work and for studying the interactions between the pituitary and the gonads, but not for the study of complex psychosocial factors. Furthermore, in rodents the early secretion of androgens in neonatal males precludes the stimulating action of estradiol in eliciting a pre-ovulatory secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary gland. (This positive feedback action of estrogen is what causes the estrous cycle to be maintained in female rodents or the menstrual cycle to be maintained in women.) But adult human males can be induced to release a surge of LH from the pituitary following estradiol treatment, under particular conditions, such as when they are being prepared for sex change surgery (Gooren, 1986).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_1_15/ai_n29401771/?tag=c...

Dr. Burton

You are married, correct? And you claim Paul as a mentor? Can't we conclude that you are a sexual addict since Paul said to marry if you had to in order to keep from sinning? Wasn't he talking about those men who could not control the urges of their own mind and body?

Some married men may have a sexual urge once a year while others have the urge to copulate with their wife once every hour. Your jump to the conclusion that non-hetero = sexual addict seems to be an illogical conclusion.

As for rhetoric, logic (reason), and the lack thereof on SDA forums? Very few SDA's have ever even taken a course in logic. They tend to stick to Ellen's hero Luther. Here is a small excerpt from the mountain of negative comments he had on the subject.

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

Michael, thanks again for the opportunity to answer some more questions. A lot of these questions you ask are the very same that I asked myself. Your questions are in italics below...

Does your perspective have anything to do with a coping mechanism or do you percieve it as something completely different?

I perceive it to be completely different, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to say I can't be sure. Do we always know when a coping mechanism has kicked in? Is it something we are usually conscious of? I'm not sure. But to answer your question in terms of my perception, I perceive that I have finally come to an acceptance of what is instead of what is 'supposed' to be. Still, even that acceptance could be a coping mechanism. Like I say, I can't be sure.

Still for any problem there is a ultimate best solution isnt there? Would you still define that as God making you straight?

No, I would define it as God making society and religious institutions realize that it's okay to be gay. But this is a hard question to answer because all of those years of trying to be straight have brought certain blessings, such as children, into my life that I wouldn't have had otherwise. At the same time I still ache over the fact that my children now must split their time between Mom's House and Dad's House and those types of things sometimes make me wish God had made me straight--not because I have an overwhelming desire to be straight, but because my being gay has caused immense pain to a woman I love deeply, and has caused my children's lives to be more difficult.

You can see, though, how if I had been able to accept myself as a young man, or even as a teen, then a lot of pain would have been avoided...and a lot of blessing would have been avoided as well. I didn't go into marriage as a cover, I went in with the belief that I was in some sort of stage that would ultimately go away after I was married. Such was the level of my self-denial.

I dont see that you would be anyone but YOU with that change would you? I dont think anyone should live a life that is defined by his sexual preferences.

I think the idea that we are defined by sexual preference, or orientation, is propogated by these kinds of discussions, and I'm not sure if there is a way around that. When defending myself for being gay, it is natural for me to say, "it's just who I am." This gives the false impression that I think it is ALL I am, which is not the case. I am also a father, a friend, a teacher, a computer geek...all sorts of other labels can be attached to me under the banner of 'who I am'.

When I finally accepted myself as a gay man, however, the role of sex and sexuality fell back into its proper place. While I was trying to suppress and deny this part of me, sex and sexuality took its place front and centre. It was consuming and indeed did have many hallmarks of addiction. Once I accepted myself it became a much smaller part of my life. Now sex is something my partner and I do that takes up a very small percentage of our lives together. Depending on how you define 'sexuality' it takes up maybe a bit more of our lives. For example, we might spend a couple of hours in the evening cuddled together on the couch, massaging each other's feet while we watch TV. If I wasn't gay, I wouldn't be doing that with HIM, and so in that regard, sexuality weaves its way through all of our lives when we have a partner to share our lives with.

I mean if one is dead and they give a eulogy, we dont want to be eulogized by saying here lies our dear beloved gay Clarence do we? A life well lived would be related in ways other than sexual preferences wouldnt it?

Absolutely. What straight people don't realize is how much of a role that straightness plays in their lives. A eulogy MAY talk about how much someone loved their wife, and stories would be told about their time together. We don't think of that as 'straightness', but if those same stories were being told about a man and his husband, people might think we were defined by sexual preference. As someone who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease (and not a sexually related one...apologies to You Know Who), this is particularly poignant for me as I very much suspect my partner's existence will be mysteriously missing from my funeral.

Thanks for increasing our/my understanding by concenting to answer some questions.

And thank you for giving me the opportunity to share and to educate. This may not change anyone's minds or positions, but hopefully it fosters some understanding just the same.

And sorry for the length, everyone!

Jaime
I want to thank you for the honesty and reflection you have given us here. I wish SO much that you wouldnt have had to go through any of this.

In reponse to the question concerning an ultimate best solution you replied, "No, I would define it as God making society and religious institutions realize that it's okay to be gay."

I understand the mix of the good and the bad that have become part of your experience as you have written. I also understand that to consider the ultimate best solution would in some ways take you back to the place where you were unable to accept yourself as a young man.

Every paragraph you wrote is suprising to me in either it's honest reflection, candor or points we dont consider or commonly think of has having anything to do with sexual preference.

I has become clear to me and I have no doubt that you are an amazing person or perhaps our ways of communicating just sync up, but I can still be wishing and praying that you are healed or changed without being offensive cant I? I hope so.
I also wish you Gods blessing as you deal with heath issues. I am saddened in deed to hear about that.
Michael

Michael, Jamie et. al:

For all the suboptimal conversation that at times occurs on this website there are also conversations like the above exchanges between Michael & Jamie. We need more of this - and less rancor - in the church.

It is for such opportunities that the Spectrum website exists.

As regards the Luther quote one has to understand the context of the quote. I dealt with some similar quotes on a blog article at:
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/martin-luther-reason-is-whore.html

The best quote I found from someone on the issue is this:

"There's a method to his madness here, as always: reason is only as good as its premises or assumptions, and, like rhetoric, reason will sell its service to any set of premises."

In any case there has really not been any reason in Burton's article so far, it is the classic accusation method of argument. If only people would think critically they would accept what I have been saying without giving any reasons for a critical thinker to accept what he says.

Ron

So, Dr. Burton. You've given us the more complete text of the citation you referred to.

That does not change the fact that what your source is 25 years old! And thus it is an inappropriate citation by virtue of age, let alone being the only citation. You could not defend a dissertation addressing the topic of addiction with no more recent documentation!

You fail to address the difference between addiction and sexual orientation, although there is a significant amount of recent literature available to inform you about that.

There is no need to cite a source that is 25 years old when discussing addiction!

So I've done some research for you. It took me just a few minutes (that you could also have taken) to find these. I know that the Oakwood College Library has access to this literature. But you seem not to have taken them time to research, only to opine.

So consider these recent citations:

Treating the Sexually Addicted Client: Establishing a Need for Increased Counselor Awareness
W Bryce Hagedorn, Gerald A Juhnke. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling. Alexandria: Apr 2005. Vol. 25, Iss. 2; pg. 66, 21 pgs

Sexual Compulsivity Among Heterosexual College Students
Brian Dodge, Michael Reece, Sara L Cole, Theo G M Sandfort. The Journal of Sex Research. New York: Nov 2004. Vol. 41, Iss. 4; pg. 343, 8 pgs

Sexual Addiction and the Internet: Implications for Gay Men
Brian J Dew, Michael P Chaney. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling. Alexandria: Apr 2004. Vol. 24, Iss. 2; pg. 101, 14 pgs

Dr. Burton, consider this: "Some Christians MISTAKENLY equate sexual addiction with homosexuality. They think acting out in homosexual ways is equivalent to addiction. However, this is not the case. There are many homosexuals who are not addicted to sexual activity. Some live celibate or monogamous lives with with a committed partner."
Laaser, Mike. Healing the Wounds of Sexual Addiction. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan. 2004.

You see, even this conservative Christian author acknowleges that is is a "mistake" to equate sexual addiction with homosexuality.

Dr. Burton, what you published could only be an opinion piece, and an ill-informed one at that. It is disappointing that a professor in an Adventist college who DOES have a Ph.D. (although not in any field related to what he is writing about) would write something so accusatory of a people group and with no credible foundation.

Again, I'd give you an "F" if you were writing in one of my classes. And if I were on your dissertation committee, you'd be sent back to do your literature review without further discussion.

Michael, Hansen, etc. This discussion is not really about whether homosexuality is a sin. It is not about what the Bible says. It is not really about what causes homosexuality. It is about an unfounded, inaccurate opinion, that homosexuality is an addiction!

John
The reason you cant have an intelligent conversation about this is your failure to listen. The closest you approach what is happening in this thread is here; "Dr. Burton, what you published could only be an opinion piece, and an ill-informed one at that."

It is no surprise to anyone here, save you, that is exactly what Kieths post is. Your fundamental misunderstanding is revealed here, "You could not defend a dissertation addressing the topic of addiction with no more recent documentation!" and, "Again, I'd give you an "F" if you were writing in one of my classes. And if I were on your dissertation committee, you'd be sent back to do your literature review without further discussion."

Do you really think a few paragraphs on spectrum is intended to be an exhaustive dissertation on the subject?

Even your last statement, "It is about an unfounded, inaccurate opinion, that homosexuality is an addiction!", is wrong as I found out from a fine discussion with Jaime. During the course of a rational and informative exchange Jaime outlined his perspective on this point.
I learned that different gays at different points in their lives for different reasons can condsider their drives as an addiction.
Perhaps your mischaracterization of Keiths piece as some sort of scientific dissertation and your desire to only consider scientific studies and all or nothing arguements leads you to discount what are larger truisms.
Try taking off your academia blinders and join the rest of us in discussing what we can all learn from each other using an "opinion piece" as a starting point.

RC

Here's Luther saying to, basically, stay stupid.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”

Had Dr. Burton written a purely opinion essay, there would be no accusations of his poor documentary evidence.

Attempting to add credibility by giving sources, that were mere letters, rather than journal articles, discredits his position as an educator. I agree with John: such feeble attempts at documentation negate legitimate authority and it is only one of many personal opinion about a subject of which he shows little knowledge.

When reading any book or article, I immediately refer to the bibliography and-or sources footnoted. We should not expect less.

Keafan if you look at my blog post you will see the context of that quote. He is not saying to stay stupid.
http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/martin-luther-reason-is-whore.html

Ron

I think it's important to make a distinction here: Homosexuality is not an addiction and heterosexuality is not an addiction, but SEX can be an addiction for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Does that make sense? Can everyone see the difference?

I think Luther was not referring to deductive and inductive reason as such but to the thoughts of the sophist of his day as well as the Greeks as the final source of knowing...versus Spirit led knowing of spiritual things, which is foolishness to the world.

regards,
pat

John Young, Here are a few quotes for you to consider:

"Q. You have said, in describing male homosexuality, that there are four associated psychological factors. What are they?

A. They are weak masculine identity, which is always the result of developmental trauma; mistrust of women; narcissism; and sexual addiction. I see those as the major conditions associated with male homosexuality."

"And a gay lifestyle is a sexual addiction for many of these fellows. They engage in compulsive behavior, and they manifest massive denial about the dangers of their behavior. It is a profound addiction. There is a deep unhappiness. They try to get constant sexual highs to compensate for their unhappiness. It's sad."

http://www.narth.com/docs/peer.html

"Sexual addictions seem to be center stage for many of the men that I treat. Indeed some of the at-risk characteristics cited by Jeffrey Robinson are perhaps predisposing to addictions: emotional sensitivity, an unusual degree of introspection (preoccupation with being different) and perfectionism. The strength of some of the sexual addictions as determined by the sheer number of partners and the preoccupation with sexual fantasies seem to approximate drug addictions. One of the better treatment models is the psycho-physiological model developed by Jeffrey Schwartz in 1996. The focus of the model is on changing the way your brain works."

http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-byrd.html

"Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts."

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Yes Jaime,
I see it.
What about addictiveness as a behaviour as compared to say a chemical dependency of someone on crack?
Someone on crack would also be an addict or have an addiction but in my mind not of the same type as the behavioural addiction.
If I was to create a word picture, I would see one as a mechanical addiction like nicotine and the other more as a behavioural addiction.
If one was to say that any type of altered brain chemistry was an addictive state then those who are classified as having sexual addiction would qualify too since the presence of endorphins and adrenalin accompany many of those behaviours.
How would you describe it? Or do you see any difference between the two at least for the purpose of how it could possibly relate in the context here?

"There is a deep unhappiness. They try to get constant sexual highs to compensate for their unhappiness. It's sad."

Yes, it is very sad when any person feels rejected by nearly all of society, as expressed by many here, knowing the human need to be accepted, but yet denied, how many of us would not be "very sad" if those we needed most for acceptance, not only rejected us, but condemned us as rank sinners unworthy, almost of life. "He that hateth his brother..."

It is sad, that there is such an absence of understanding of how humans react to such overwhelming condemnation. If a parent, teacher, or person in authority constantly conveys to an individual that he is almost less than human, is abhorent in the eyes of many--and especially so-called "Christians," that it should not be realized is a sign of sociopathology demonstrated by total inability to have compassion for others and ignoring the pain their actions cause.

RC

Ok, stay an infant instead of stay stupid. I don't see the difference, but it fits perfectly with Hitchens' when he says that "Believers are the intellectual infants of our civilization".

Any study that refers to 'the gay lifestyle' is suspect to me. As if all gays have the same lifestyle. How does one roll one's eyes in print?

Michael, I don't know that I'm qualified to answer your last question. I don't know enough about the brain chemistry of a sex addict. When I first came out, I went to my pastor. The suggestion was made that maybe I wasn't gay, maybe I was 'just a sex addict'. Part of me thought that was wishful thinking on his part. But I had a marriage and children to think about, and so I figured I owed it to myself, to my wife and to my children to give that course of action a try. I'm not a sex addict, but being in a 12 step group as well as another group led by a medical doctor gave me the opportunity to speak things I had never spoken before to people who did not judge me at all. Being able to do that brought healing to me, and it also helped me accept who I am.

As far as addiction goes, it turns out that going to these groups was like trying to cure my blue eyes with penicillin. I was trying to treat something that wasn't a problem (being gay) with 'medicine' for something that was (sex addiction). Still, it really opened my eyes as far as addiction goes. I still can't speak to the brain chemistry of sex addiction compared to drug addictions, but I was able to see the ruin sex addiction brought. I also saw that sex for me wasn't the compulsive, damaging thing that it was for addicts.

For what it's worth, there were people in those groups, including the medical doctor who ran one, who firmly believe that sex addiction does indeed alter the chemistry of the brain. However, it's not an issue that I've studied on my own.

Pat
I think he was simply tarting up Paul's words in 1 Cor. Luther was a professor of theology and whatever his cultural and moral blind spots, he was a very intelligent man; he just didn't believe that logic had enough natural facts to work with to come up with the Gospel. His point of view was sola scriptura as the only arena in which logic and religion mixed (although he did apparently invite his critics in Worms to convince him either from scripture or reason of his error--we can't always be consistent, can we?)

Luther's quote is to the point. He would never have approved of people like myself who feel free to dismiss those parts of the Bible that seem cruel and inhuman (slavery, discrimination against women, genocide (albeit imaginary), death penalty for homosexuality and for collecting firewood on the sabbath, the slaughter of the innocent sons of Egypt, etc). Those of us who come to this debate about scripture's view of homosexuality from essentially a humanist point of view will probably never be able reach an agreement with those for whom there is no truth beyond a clear verse of scripture.

In the past conservatives have simply chosen to overlook those texts that offend against current societal values (e.g. slavery). Maybe the same thing will happen to the scriptural condemnation of people who for no fault of their own happen to be gay. I hope so but I'm not so sure.

Sorry Jaime
I wasn't asking for a scientific answer necessarily. Certainly I am not qualified to answer it either.
I was only inquiring what you thought about the differences in the types of addictions and if the behavioural type had any application in any part of this discussion.

I will say in the times I have done marital counseling that part of the illusion that drives adulterous relationships is the heightened sense of forbidden fruit or wrongness of relationships.
I have seen torrid affairs that flourished in the darkness and the people said, OH I cant live without him/her. Yet when the spouse found out and the relationship was out in the open, their passion faded like a Houston summer day melts an ice cube. What they thought were feelings for the other person was in fact largely the passion of the wrongness of the forbidden fruit.
You mentioned the hidden relationships of youth and felt there were some addictive qualities. Also that the addictive qualities faded as things came into the open.
Are their any parallels you see in terms of what you discribed as addictive elements?
Thanks in advance.
Michael

Keafan wrote:

--
Ok, stay an infant instead of stay stupid. I don't see the difference, but it fits perfectly with Hitchens' when he says that "Believers are the intellectual infants of our civilization".
--

Well if history is any indication and Luther was instrumental in changing the Western world as well as the Catholic Church I think Luther would win out in the reason department over Hitchens'. Actually I think Luther would leave Hitchens' dazed and confused could they debate.

In any case Luther's argument is about infant baptism. That God can save the infant even though the infant has no ability to reason. The sacrament of baptism being the acknowledgment that God saves who God wants to save. Remember Luther was very much a Predestinationist in what we now think of as the Calvinist tradition.

Like all of us Luther does not always use the best argument and can also be wrong. But to pull a quote out like the one used here and assert that it is Luther's view of reason is simply wrong. At least if you are going to use a quote about intellect and reasoning base it on something where he is talking about those subjects rather then where he is making a case for infant baptism.

Ron

Aage,

I Appreciate your honesty and objectivity of the source of the problem between "your view" and the "conservative view."

That is not to say that scripture was not at times speaking of "social situations" of a given time that did not have a specific lasting "moral issue" behind it. The spreading of the gospel was the main issue which was not to be "bogged down" by fighting cultural mores that that if broken would limit/hinder the spreading of the gospel...thus for an example the "transition" from slavery over time rather than demand the immediate cessation of it.

regards,
pat

Ron

Luther seems to be arguing that its easier for God to save an infant BECAUSE the infant CANNOT reason. Reason works against faith. What Luther said was true then and true now. If you use your brain the superstitions of the Bible are no different than what you can find in an african witch doctor of today. Thirty years ago you couldn't find a logic course at the SDA college I attended. I now know that Andrew's teaches it, but how widespread is it? There's a reason. All this talk about teaching SDA students to be critical thinkers is a joke IMO. Like, "Question everything that disagrees with what the Bible says or Ellen says". Not hardly critical thinking or even the use of a valid argument form.

Ron

from your blog, the expanded quote:

"Nay, in that children are destitute of reason, they are all the more fit and proper recipients of baptism. For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the Divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

Like I said, the infant is more fit because it does not have reason.

How could you ever arrive at a conclusion that Luther was not arguing against reason here? Of course, talking out of both sides of his mouth as usual, Luther uses reason to argue against reason.

Sad, to say the least.

Pat, I'll speak specifically to the "transition" away from slavery. It advantages the slaveowner but is of no advantage to the ex-slave: it creates a limbo state in which people are allegedly apprenticed into freedom but remain bonded. The British West Indies tried this in the years after abolition and it was an absolute debacle.

Lesson learned: you are either free or you are not.

Michael, In my case I don't think there were addictive qualities to relationships so much as there were addictive qualities to thoughts. I get the whole 'burning with lust' thing, and in my head I had no legitimate outlet for it. I find it interesting how if I see a good looking man now, I certainly notice him, and I may think he is 'hot'...but I don't 'burn' anymore. When I thought I HAD to be straight, that's when the "burning" took place.

keafan, you said: "All this talk about teaching SDA students to be critical thinkers is a joke IMO."

I'm not sure I agree with you. I went to University of Toronto for 4 years and then to Canadian Union College for a year and a half. I was surprised to find that I learned more about critical thinking from a couple of professors at CUC than I ever did at U of T. I don't know if that is the case at most SDA schools or not, but at CUC it certainly was. To be fair, though, I never went so far as to question the validity of the Bible as the very Word of God (at that time).

Those who claim to know what's happening "today" in all Adventist colleges and universities (based on their ancient experience), who maintain that no teaching toward critical thinking, no challenging assumptions, no looking at all sides of an issue, and no Socratic method take place are, frankly, annoying to those of us who do it every day.

Chris

Maybe you could show me where I have said that NO anything is taking place. I have implied that what is referred to as "critical thinking" is a joke. This would be compared to what a normal person (ie, non-SDA) would consider to be critical thinking.

Its not possible to know ALL that is happening today for ANYBODY. I haven't seen or heard anything from the more than a dozen nieces and nephews that are currently in academy, college, or are recent college graduates from SDA institutions. I attended Southern, then a real university at which I studied logic.

I can only speak from my personal experience and the hearsay received from relatives. When our uncle was a Provost at Andrews I spoke to him about it and he agreed that critical thinking skills were not emphasized at all except in the math department. Course, I have no first hand experience with the current course content at Andrews save for the info on their site.

Where do you "do it everyday"?

Jamie- a story. Southern used to offer a course called Honors English. The requirements for admission to the class were 4 years of A's in academy English and an ACT of >= 25 in English. You paid for a 6 hour course but only attended 3 hrs per week and were guaranteed a minimum grade of C-. I did 'A' work all semester. However, after spending 2 months on the term paper showing that it was almost a near certainty that Jesus turned the water into FERMENTED wine, therefore it was ridiculous to teach abstinence from something Jesus Himself encouraged, my paper was not returned and I received a C- for the course without explanation. Needless to say, I left and went to a real university where thinking for yourself (backed up with evidence and logical arguments) was actually encouraged instead of ending up being punished.

I realize that times change, but from what I know, the general idea is still the same. Note Ford, et al, the "Science" conferences in Denver, the current LSU trauma, etc.

Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.

In fact, we start critical thinking with new student orientation, where before school started last month I challenged students on their beliefs about gun control, abortion, and health care insurance reform--an orientation I seriously doubt your "real university" offered or offers.

As I said, sniping from the uninformed (or selectively informed) does get a trifle annoying. Were you in my place, I'm fairly sure you'd agree.

By the way, firsthand is one word, and it's correct to say "every day" in this instance, not the adjective "everyday." I also teach my students accurate usage.

That said, I agree that it would be heartening to find more critical thinking in every part of the world--including this blog--and that your described treatment in that "Honors English" course was deplorable and truly unacceptable.

Ron

I don't care enough about trying to explain Luther's view on reason to completely research what he says on it. but one site which asks the question using some of these quotes has a comment by someone which is pretty good:
--
"Why do you even suppose Luther is consistent in all his writing?

I think it is quite likely that he, when reason twarted his purposes, would rant about it."
--

I think that is pretty good, Luther wished fellow theologians dead and he said all kinds of mean things to people who he disagreed with.

But as you said he uses reason. Often eloquently so to accuse him of being against reason based upon a few quotes is rather prejudiced as it judges him upon a tiny fraction of what he said. Also your statements about infants being easier to be saved has little to do with what Luther believed since he did not believe that people do anything to be saved. Certainly from our perspective reason can just as easily be an enemy of faith as a friend of faith and if you held to predestination and you were not predestined for salvation than reason would always fight against God.

The next section in Table talk says:
--
Some one sent to know whether it was permissible to use warm water in baptism? The Doctor replied: "Tell the blockhead that water, warm or cold, is water."
--

That is followed by a very nasty statement about unbelieving Jews and baptism. Table Talk is not written as well reasoned arguments. It is his dinner conversation.
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_tal...

Joselito, I apologize. I didn't mean that your article was from NARTH, but I was thinking of all of Hansen's references when I wrote that.

This quote: "These androgens permanently alter the brain... If the same thing is true for humans, then maybe it is the prenatal hormonal environment that determines homosexuality." supports what I have read in other research.

Dear Editor,

Please explain to me why it is considered acceptable for Keith Burton to malign my entire nation while my challenging him on his arrogance in this regard is removed? I truly believe that my response to him was no more disrespectful to him than he was to me and my nation.

KM,

I believe slavery IS wrong but the NT did not command immediate cessation. The fight resulting would have moved the primary focus away from the spreading and accepting of Christ and Him crucified.

To Paul that is the message where Spiritual freedom is found weather one is a slave or "free." Hearts changed brings in it's train true liberties of all types. In Christ the slave may be "free" while the apparent physically free may yet remain a "slave" to sin.

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.” Acts 26:29.

regards,
pat

Chris

Challenging students on their beliefs is not teaching them proper critical thinking. Its only the first step in critical thinking. How clear and precise were you in formulating the questions or problems? Did you assess relevant information using abstract ideas and interpret it correctly? If you went so far as to give a conclusion did you explain how you constructed it (was it logically correct, etc)? Did you test your conclusion? Are they taught how to think open-mindedly and how to assess their assumptions and implications? How to figure out complex problems without falling into traps such as fallacious appeals to authority or circular reasoning? Critical thinking also involves the ability to differentiate between inference, deduction, propositional statements and premises. My premise is that SDA students are not taught the basics of proper reasoning which is foundational to critical thinking.

The large study done in California found that people in your position tend to not know what they are talking about (you might be an exception):

11) From either the quantitative data directly, or from minimal inference from those data, it is clear that a significant percentage of faculty interviewed (and, if representative, most faculty) :

* do not understand the connection of critical thinking to intellectual standards.
* are not able to clarify major intellectual criteria and standards.
* inadvertently confuse the active involvement of students in classroom activities with critical thinking in those activities.
* are unable to give an elaborated articulation of their concept of critical thinking.
* cannot provide plausible examples of how they foster critical thinking in the classroom.
* are not able to name specific critical thinking skills they think are important for students to learn.
* are not able to plausibly explain how to reconcile covering content with fostering critical thinking.
* do not consider reasoning as a significant focus of critical thinking.
* do not think of reasoning within disciplines as a major focus of instruction.
* cannot specify basic structures essential to the analysis of reasoning.
* cannot give an intelligible explanation of basic abilities either in critical thinking or in reasoning.
* do not distinguish the psychological dimension of thought from the intellectual dimension.
* have had no involvement in research into critical thinking and have not attended any conferences on the subject.
* are unable to name a particular theory or theorist that has shaped their concept of critical thinking.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/research/Abstract-RPAUL-38public.cfm

The Foundation For Critical Thinking has many resources you might find helpful.

When our daughter was in 9th grade she was assigned to a group tasked with debating from the point of absolute Gun Rights. Since the Right To Bear Arms was to deter tyranny from the Federal Government I helped her construct an argument which concluded that not only can you bear guns but also should have the right to have a fighter jet in your hangar, a nuclear bomb silo in your back yard, or an armored personnel carrier if you so desire. Her group won. If our daughter had attended your orientation she might have gotten up and walked out since she might have concluded that she was at the School for the Slow Thinkers instead of college.

As far as the orientation at a "real" university? Our son worked for the "real" university helping with the orientation of 5,000 freshman this past summer. Each student is required to spend a night in the dorms and two days attending meetings. Parents are strongly encouraged to accompany their student to all meetings (just not stay in the dorms). I can assure you the orientation ASSUMES that the student is WAY past the level of properly questioning beliefs. (I attended his orientation 2 years ago and went through my own orientation at the same university 28 years ago. After attending my orientation the first class I signed up for was logic because I discovered I was ignorant due to my fundy upbringing.) Its focused more on proper decision making about their personal life including study habits, university resources (medical, advising, counseling), drug use, alcohol abuse, intramural sports, conflict resolution, etc. For the parents there are resources available and instruction on not being a 'helicopter parent'. If kids show up so intellectually stunted that its a new thing to question their beliefs on abortion or some other such hot topic they are on their own and would be pitied (but I realize you are dealing with sheltered, brainwashed students so you have different problems).

This quote: "These androgens permanently alter the brain... If the same thing is true for humans, then maybe it is the prenatal hormonal environment that determines homosexuality." supports what I have read in other research.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 16 September 2009 at 5:22

Carrol,
I may be wrong but research you've read about permanent brain change consequent to certain perinatal (pre and post) hormonal environment were seen in rodents, not humans. Notice the word... "IF" - meaning, the same conclusion may be reached only if we made an assumption, a huge one, that Dr Schwartz easily dispensed with for two reasons. Read her entire piece if you haven't yet.

Others who argue whether or not homosexuality is a choice may be interested in an opinion piece in the same issue of the journal.

"Whether it's a 'choice' or not is irrelevant," Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, The, Jan-Feb, 2008 by Art Cohen
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3491/is_1_15/ai_n29401758/?tag=c...

About critical thinking in our mission school, two English professors (both alumni of Adventist colleges) in whose class I sat as a student come to mind: Irene Wakeham Lee, EMC-PhD, Stanford and Dorothy Minchin Comm, AUC-PhD, UofAlberta.

Outside the classroom, the person who taught me about critical thinking more than anyone else was Mortimer Adler, especially his book titled_How to Read_. Not in this book but in another place, he wrote:

Opinions can be true or false, as knowledge cannot be...

Closely connected with this distinction between knowledge and opinion are two other distinctions. One is the distinction between the things about which we can have certitude -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- and things about which some doubt remains...

The other distinction is that between the corrigible and mutable and the incorrigible and immutable. When we have certitude about anything, we have a hold on truth that is both incorrigible and immutable. When anything remains in doubt, to even the slightest degree, it is both mutable and corrigible. We should recognize that we may change our minds about it and correct whatever was wrong.

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerknowledge1.htm

> The other distinction is that between the corrigible and mutable and the incorrigible and immutable. When we have certitude about anything, we have a hold on truth that is both incorrigible and immutable. When anything remains in doubt, to even the slightest degree, it is both mutable and corrigible. We should recognize that we may change our minds about it and correct whatever was wrong.

There is a black-and-white "thinker" - and more trite nonsense.

Anyone who has "certitude" about anything is simply showing they don't understand the real probability of the thing being wrong. Hence EVERY IDEA is "both mutable and corrigible" and hence this is a useless distinction.

Thinking needs to to be in terms of probabilities, not trues and falses.

/Bevin

Not true Bevin,
In the end God seperates the sheep from the goats.
He seperates the wheat and the tares.
Some are saved and some are not.

The biblical record is black and white. It is only where men muck it up that it records concessions being made.

I take from that that the highest form of thinking IS black and white. Problem is that God and very few others have the knowledge base to be able to make those types of decisions.

Bevin,
If you read anything by Adler, such as his essay on Knowledge and Opinion I cited, you'll find he agrees with you that incorrigible and immmutable truths are few or even rare. Much of what we claim to be "true" are corrigible and mutable - ie. probable or they are not beyond a shadow of doubt.

P.S. I noticed that the e-site I referenced has been suspended. You may read Adler's essay in his Six Great Ideas book. According to him, incorrigible and immutable truths are self evident. The relationship of a part to the whole is one example of a self-evident truth. "We cannot understand a part being greater than a whole or a whole less than a part." In sum, opposites cannot be both true.

Another corollary:

"You own your opinions; you do not own the facts." Never confuse the two.

Keafan,

First, I attended public schools through university.

Second, I have used materials from The Foundation for Critical Thinking (and have been on their mailing list) for many years, and photocopied some of their materials (with citations!) for use by students during orientation.

Third, I never assume anyone--even if they're 18 years old--is "past the level" of properly questioning one's beliefs. I certainly know I'm not.

Fourth, I used the orientation time to line up 200 students from wall to wall in the auditorium and to vote with their bodies where they stood on a topic. Then I changed a salient definition so that, for example, the definition for abortion now also included contraception. On the basis of the new definition I asked them to change their "stance." This took place frequently. And yes, gun control eventually involved owning bombs. We also took on "Jesus was a liberal/conservative."

Much time had already been spent on logistics of college life and personal decision-making; this session was specifically aimed at preparing people to be actually educated. I told the students, "No matter what your parents, your pastor, or your professors tell you, you will ultimately need to make up your own mind. In addition, you must learn to hold your ideas apart from who you are; otherwise, when your ideas are challenged you will feel personally challenged and will be unwilling to truly consider another point of view or to grow. This is unfortunately the shallow, shrill, defensive tenor of discourse in this country. Anyone who practices this mechanism of thoughtless discourse is not truly educated, no matter what educational degree they own. You are being called upon to change, to learn how to learn, and thus become educated. This is what it means to love God with all your mind."

I suppose I could go on about how I attempt to achieve this in each class. I won't. I'll just remain annoyed by those who claim a vaunted, superior air ("School for the Slow Thinkers"?) but don't actually know what's happening where I work.

By the by, my son graduated from his substandard education at Union College and matriculated directly to Yale Law School and Yale Theological Seminary, where he earned concurrent degrees. He and a best friend, who recently earned a Ph.D. in economics from Oxford University, both agreed this past month (to my shock) that their favorite all-time course was their first-year Written and Oral Communication honors class at Union College. (Woo-hoo!) (Holla!)

Chris, do you credit your teaching ability and knowledge to your attendance of public school through university?

The description of your teaching is admirable and it can only be hoped that all SDA schools followed such a model. But it is always the individual teacher who has the most influence, and English is probably the best subject in which to learn critical thinking, IMO.

My son has taught Rnglish in high school for six+ years and college for an equal amount of time. It is very depressing to see the very low level of undergraduates today--nearly all must take remedial English, often more than once!

What has been your experience comparing public high school graduates entering college with students from SDA schools?

Chris

I looked up your bio when you wrote about where you worked and saw the info about your sons, wife, etc. Congratulations on a job well done with your kids! As a father, how much do you attribute their success to information gained in day to day interaction with you? Since I also saw that you earned your BA at a public university in the most liberal state in this country with, formerly, the best public educational system in the country, I feel on fairly safe ground to think that your ability to think rationally and logically was instilled long before your Master's program at PUC. Your wife has taught at both SDA and Public schools. What does she say about the thinking skills attempted in Public schools versus SDA schools?

At Union, how many courses are offered in Philosophy? In Logic? Do you have a debate team? Does any local academy have a debate team? Is critical thinking encouraged and supported by teaching the formulas for a True conclusion? Do they understand the difference between a propositional statement and a premise? The basics have to be understood before they can determine rationally whether their conclusion is sound.

The main thinking I encountered in my SDA Education was the constant attempt to determine whether my current actions were within the mountain of rules. Obviously I discovered that supporting, with evidence, a logically true conclusion which questioned the Biblical soundness of Ellen's 'Voices In Her Head' was somehow against some unwritten rule. Course, this was before Ford- maybe things have changed.

What other people group is so routinely maligned, negatively generalized, condemned (often harshly), and debated in SPECTRUM blogs more than gays and lesbians?

I don't remember reading discussions about people of African descent! Yet the Bible has been used to condemn them for hundreds of years. Would you even think of making negative generalizations about them? Some people do. Hopefully not here.

I think Catholics used to be the favorites for Adventist to bash up through the '60s. But I don't see any discussions here about how awful Catholics are.

Why aren't we debating whether all Muslim's are terrorists and that their religion is of the devil?

Yes, freedom of speech and religious liberty probably give all of you a right to condemn gays and lesbians week after week, month after month, column after column. But what are they singled out as the most maligned and most debated people on these blogs? (That's what it seems like to me. Jamie would probably agree.)

The spirit of these blogs about homosexuality does not, in my opinion, reflect the model of the Gospels where time after time Jesus stood with the marginalized, those perceived as sinners, and those who broke taboos regardless of what others thought of Him because of it. He did write in the sand about accusers and they went away.

Hmm.

John, I can tell you exactly why we are singled out as the most maligned and most debated people on these blogs, and in the church too for that matter. It's because the majority of people don't have to deal with this themselves. The percentage of gay people in the church is still very small. In a church where people believe homosexuality is a sin, they can safely point their fingers at it without ever worrying about committing it.

Divorce? Lots of it in the church. Lust? Please. The it's as rampant in the church as it is out. Gluttony? Go to a church potluck sometime. Most so-called sins are more universal and can cause people to say 'there but for the grace of God go I". But not homosexuality. Straight people, in general, are not the least bit tempted to have homosexual relationships. So it's very easy for them to condemn and malign, because they will never have to worry about being in the same place as us.

That's how I see it, at any rate.

KM,

I believe slavery IS wrong but the NT did not command immediate cessation. The fight resulting would have moved the primary focus away from the spreading and accepting of Christ and Him crucified.

To Paul that is the message where Spiritual freedom is found weather one is a slave or "free." Hearts changed brings in it's train true liberties of all types. In Christ the slave may be "free" while the apparent physically free may yet remain a "slave" to sin.

Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.” Acts 26:29.

regards,
pat
Posted by: pat travis | 16 September 2009 at 10:09

*******
Pat, I understand. The NT made no significant claim on the prevailing social order; it made lots of claims on individuals' approaches to each other and to the relationships among believers.

I was commenting specifically on the idea that slavery could be dismantled piecemeal. It hasn't worked where it's been tried.

The church tried the same softly-softly/don't-upset-the-neighbors approach with US ethnic relations in the 1800s and has become so attached to the "temporary solution" that employees are still defending it today.

Elaine and Keafan,

Thinking clearly was probably drummed into my knobby head by my father, a high school history teacher I have written about who was uncompromising when it came to integrity and thoughtful discourse. As Elaine observes, "It is always the individual teacher who has the most influence," and it is often the parent/s who ultimately have even more influence.

Public v. Adventist schools? Public schools do a better job on debating skills (we don't have a debate team, though I know Columbia Union College does, or did). Generally, public schools boast tenfold the resources of Adventist schools. I haven't found a discernible difference between public and private school students' thinking skills. Reading and reasoning skills across the spectrum have suffered mightily as students read blogs and Facebook and Halo and Twilight and Chicken Soups instead of "real" books. (The English teacher coming out here.)

What keeps me teaching at an Adventist college is (brace yourself) the freedom to talk about any topic I desire, including Jesus, homosexuality, the myth of redemptive violence, misleading terms such as "conservative" and "liberal," where people go when they die, and why it's really okay to dance. Moreover, I've written about all of those topics in Adventist-published books. (Yes, Adventists aren't as constipated as they once were, and I also like it here in flyover country.)

Today I visited an honors class where students act out--complete with laws and voting--life in ancient Athens. They determined whether they should rebuild a wall destroyed by Sparta, how it would be financed, and ramifications that might ensue. I found the challenges and the critical thinking between the four factions more enlightening than in a formal debate. Later in the semester, these students will adopt life in puritanical New England, complete with literal witch hunts.

The point is, again, most people haven't a clue what's going on in classrooms. To some degree, happily, professors enjoy more freedom as a result. On the other hand, we cringe under allegations that bear negligible semblance to reality. There remain more than 7,000 who will not bend the knee to baal studies (b.s.).

All of this confusion comes from our insistence that the Bible is THE EXCLUSIVE Word of God. EGW tried to tell us that the writers of the Bible were not God's pen but that stance does not give us the authority we need when using "the book."

One Race, Indivisible.

Statrei,

You are correct that the "bottom line" is how one views scripture...and as Aage commented, "Those of us who come to this debate about scripture's view of homosexuality from essentially a humanist point of view will probably never be able reach an agreement with those for whom there is no truth beyond a clear verse of scripture."

I feel Davidson did a good job in his article and he addresses the possible "oft misinterpreted" intention of the EGW's, "writers of the Bible were not God's pen" by some Adventist laymen and scholars.

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Hermeneutics,%20Biblical/r...

regards,
pat

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed...

Keith, where have all our thinkers gone?

Politically speaking, in a closed shop with an open ballot, free thinkers and free thought is not tolerated.

So also scientifically speaking, as the Ben Stein movie, 'Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed' revealed re: evolution and intelligent design.

Free thought about a challenger to Darwinism can't be tolerated and will not be allowed a seat at the table, and it must, to change the metaphor similar to Ben's movie, be relegated to the other side of the wall that the true believers have erected because "the debate is over." Where have we heard that lately re: global warming? Can anyone say Al Gore?

For the latest heavy weight to weigh in about (from the book cover back page) "Intelligent design - the idea that an intelligent cause rather than an undireced process, best explains key features of life and the universe" and is found in the "... digital code embedded in DNA," you may want to check out 'Signature In The Cell - DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design' by Stephen C. Meyer.

Don't fall for the 'syllogistic incursion' sand trap that does not add to forward movement in free thought creative dialogue.

Not being a scientist or a scholar, I have easy questions for Spectrum thought leaders and those who promote homosexuality scientifically as representative of our 'original genesis' and God's 'original intent' for his male and female creation.

- Does DNA affirm that there is a gene for being heterosexual AND also a gene for being homosexual?

- Does DNA affirm that there is a gene for homosexuality that is related to the gene for heterosexuality?

- Are the children of Adam and Eve today seriously proposing that an 'undirected process?' transcends 'intelligent cause' (design)?

- Have they considered the implications and ramifications of such a proposition?

- Why do they not take philosophical / spiritual questions as seriously as the scientific questions that seem to affirm their preconceived assertions?

Quoting from gay and lesbian publications is one thing, but adducing them as unimpeachable sources is another matter. Their use of the science and the studies published is never adduced to prove the science unimpeachable, but to prove the emotion about the science.

Absolutely NO science has ever been given credibility to prove homosexuality (or even heterosexuality) can find an 'original genesis' home in DNA... and thus it also can not find an 'original intent' philosophical / spiritual home.

Keith, although your post here on this Spectrum blog is not about spiritual issues per se, as a free thought Christian in the mode of the Bereans and of our mutual mentor, Paul (old and new perspective is OK), and as a former Adventist of many years who has been free for many years to think freely, I'm sure you will accept this 'thoughtful' salute...

Lift Up Jesus ONLY and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art

Absolutely NO science has ever been given credibility to prove homosexuality (or even heterosexuality) can find an 'original genesis' home in DNA

True. However, there has been plenty of science that has given evidence that homosexuality is biological. That does not mean they've found a gene. With something as complex as sexuality it is unlikely that they will find just one specific gene that causes it. The may someday find more prevalence of certain gene in homosexuals, but that gene may wind up being found in some heterosexuals as well.

There is still a lot to learn about DNA, but from what I understand, the idea that this gene causes that trait is a simplistic understanding of genetics and is not very helpful on either side of this debate. It's the same when they are looking for a gene for my cancer. Family history on both sides suggest that I have a genetic predisposition toward a certain kind of cancer. They are testing my blood as we speak to find out if I have any of the known genes. If none of them show up, that doesn't mean my cancer is NOT genetic. In fact, they suggest I keep my blood banked so that 10 or 20 years down the road, they can look at it again to see if I have any other cancer genes that they may have discovered after my death. If I do have the gene they know of, then they will test my children for it as well. If they have it, then they have a 50-80% chance of getting the same kind of cancer in their lifetimes. Notice that the gene doesn't automatically CAUSE cancer. They may not get cancer at all even if they carry the gene.

Likewise, if there does turn out to be a gene for homosexuality, that doesn't mean everyone with the gene would automatically be gay. It just means the chances that they are have increased.

But we cannot say that because there is no proof in the DNA then homosexuality is not biological.

At any rate, we know it's not a choice. I know that because I am gay and I didn't choose to be. In fact, I tried very hard to choose to be straight (and by doing so, discovered that being straight isn't a choice either).

True. However...

Posted by: Jamie (not verified) | 17 September 2009 at 11:36

Your quote of my sentence -

"Absolutely NO science has ever been given [i.e., adduced with] credibility to prove homosexuality (or even heterosexuality) can find an 'original genesis' home in DNA.

Your comment about my sentence -

"True.

"However, there has been plenty of science that has given evidence that homosexuality is biological. That does not mean they've found a gene."

Your comment in addition to 'true' is 'however' and is an expression of emotion about nebulous science, as I said above, "... emotion about the science," and is followed by the true scientific conclusion that a gene has not been found.

- - - - -

"Plenty of science" and "given evidence" is a common response to questions about 'original genesis' of homosexuality and bi-sexuality (or even heterosexuality). DNA and genes, our biology is what we ARE. Conduct is what we DO with what we are. I'm sure this is obvious to you, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated simply to move beyond it.

From my previous comments, Posted by: Art Telles (not verified) | 17 September 2009 at 9:53

"Intelligent design - the idea that an intelligent cause rather than an undireced process, best explains key features of life and the universe" and is found in the "... digital code embedded in DNA,"

The digital code that is embedded is our biology, our being.

If what we 'DO' is a result of 'digital code embedded in DNA' (original genesis), then a gene for 'being' would be related to a gene for 'doing' and would also be evident now for homosexual conduct and bi-sexual conduct and heterosexual conduct.

Mongolism (Down syndrome - an extra chromosome), Hermaphroditism and other abnormalities are examples of how 'original genesis' DNA and genes have gone wrong re: God's 'original intent' for his own 'it is good' creation.

God loves all his children, as we should too, because God was not confused when he said 'be fruitful and multiply' even though some can not be fruitful or choose to not be fruitful God's 'original intent' way.

I say this respectfully, but your 'however' response is an emotional response about what you assert the science is confirming.

My questions remain, and, after decades of research, where is the science to move the conversation forward to a conclusion that God's 'original genesis' includes any conduct other than heterosexual conduct?

Until science confirms conduct has a DNA 'original genesis' home, we can not assert definitively that homosexuality (homosexual conduct) is not a choice.

Heterosexuality is definitely a choice, and so is homosexuality. To extrapolate from what Jesus said about lusting after another person, to lust is a choice, and to consummate that lust is conduct determined by choice... not by DNA.

Art

Lift Up Jesus ONLY and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art, I guess it comes down to how we define sexuality. Is homosexuality determined by attraction or behaviour? If I am attracted only to men, but get married and have sex only with a woman, does that make me straight? Am I correcting in believing that is what you think?

My questions remain, and, after decades of research, where is the science to move the conversation forward to a conclusion that God's 'original genesis' includes any conduct other than heterosexual conduct?

Where is the science to conclude ANYTHING about God or His will? Frankly, that is outside of the realm of science, so if you are waiting for science to prove that God's 'original genesis' includes anything at all, you'll be waiting an awfully long time.

Jamie,
You've been very respectful and kind to those who disagree with you and I hope my questioning will measure up to the same standard you set. I know you have thought long and hard about this topic not only for the sake of discussing it but one in which you've been involved in a very personal way.

You wrote:

I find it interesting how if I see a good looking man now, I certainly notice him, and I may think he is 'hot'...but I don't 'burn' anymore. When I thought I HAD to be straight, that's when the "burning" took place.
Posted by: Jamie | 16 September 2009 at 2:11

I understood this to mean it's a sexual attraction to another man, regardless of whether he's heterosexual, bisexual or gay. Am I correct? If so, after discovering the man's true gender orientation, doesn't someone in your situation make a conscious choice one way or the other? To go ahead, following one's desire, or to go away?

Please understand, even as I try to be as neutral and objective as possible, my perspective and my comprehension may be colored by having been brought up in a different society than have been the experience of most posters here.

Joselito, that is a very good question. I would think that most gay people don't act on their attractions most of the time. I see several good looking guys every day, but I assume that they are straight simply because, statistically, they probably are. Even if they are gay, I have a partner and I love him very much, so just like a straight man who is married may see good looking women every day, but not act on his attraction, I see good looking men every day and don't do anything about it.

You said, "I understood this to mean it's a sexual attraction to another man, regardless of whether he's heterosexual, bisexual or gay. Am I correct? If so, after discovering the man's true gender orientation, doesn't someone in your situation make a conscious choice one way or the other? To go ahead, following one's desire, or to go away?"

Yes, you are correct. I can find a man attractive regardless of his sexual orientation. However, I don't make a conscious choice not to be attracted if I know he is straight. Beauty is beauty, wherever it may be found. But that doesn't mean I am lusting after him or wishing I could sleep with him. It just means I think he is attractive.

That said, there is a difference between how I feel seeing an attractive man compared to seeing a beautiful woman and I think that is where sexuality comes into play. I guess the best way to understand that is to ask a straight guy what the difference is for him when he sees a good-looking man or a good-looking woman.

Does this answer your question? I'm feeling like the answer isn't quite adequate, though I'm not sure why.

Joselito,

isn't it exactly the same with heterosexuals?

We are aware of persons of the opposite gender without knowing their sexual preferences, and also don't act on it.

Part of living in our society is acting in a rational manner considering all aspects of the situation - those that our more primitive systems use, and rational thought and acquired knowledge.

/Bevin

Definition of Critical Thinking:

"Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking may involve determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true. Hence, Fisher & Scriven define critical thinking as "Skilled, active, interpretation and evaluation of observations, communications, information, and argumentation."[1] Parker & Moore define it more narrowly as the careful, deliberate determination of whether one should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which one accepts or rejects it.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Critical thinking, therefore, is not based on emotion or one's heritage or genetics, but objective established truth. That's the problem, there is no agreement sometime on objective established truth. I maintain, if one takes the time with logical steps one can arrive at obective established truth. However, what it is for improving a secular society and what it is for salvation can be worlds apart. I may accept the homosexual with tolerance in establishing a civil society, but may approach that individual differently as I explain eternal salvation.

I too have an appreciation for Richard Davidson's material on critial thinking based on

1. The Historical Critical Method
- Objective:
To arrive at the correct meaning of scripture, which is the human author'es intention correct intention of the aurthor, as understood by his contemporaries.

and

2. The Historicl Biblical Approach:
- Objective:
To arrive at the correct meaning of scripture, which is what God inteneded to communicate, whether it is fully known by the human author or his contemporaries. (1 Peter 1:10-12 )

1 Peter 1:10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Critical thinking is not necessary based on what a professor has told you, what a contempory your like, but Holy Spirit directed understanding, not worldly knowledge. "Even angels long to look into these things."

That reference to Richard Davidson is :

Page 107 of
http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Hermeneutics,%20Biblical/r...

There might be a cogent corollary question: Where have all the doers gone? The thinkers have identified far more problems that the doers are willing or able to fix.

Fox News has a stable full of "thinkers" and not a single doer! Jim Wallis is about the only doer with a mission outside of himself.

We know the problems, we even know some of the answers--yet we insist on looking for more problems rather than addressing effectively the ones we know about and have the means to correct. At least Jimmy Carter is active in Habitat for Humanity even in his eighties. He has helped deliver clear water to thousands, etc, etc. A mediocare governor and president but a first rate human being. Why couldn't the Georgia Cumberland Conference officers and pastors build at least 4 houses a year? The Pacific Union Conference could build 12. What an opportunity for real fellowship--what an opportunity for the Conference President to see just exactly the kind of ministry his is to lead. That would beat all the thinking in the world. If the Dorcas Society of the Pacific Union would become active and corrdinated that would heap coals of fire on the head of the Red Corss, Salvation Army, and Good Will combined. Enough of this navel gazing. There are people out there than need help. Tom

Right on, Tom.

If Adventists volunteerd for Habitat for Humanity, and a thousand other great causes, they would meet people, become salt and light, rub shoulders with people, rather than remaining in isolation. What an amazing strategy for spreading the word that Adventists are giving people who care about their neighbors and their neighborhoods. What a concept! Community volunteering.

Instead of talking about a generic "the world," we could focus on "my world, right in my backyard" where MY help is needed now. My hands. My energy. My time. My caring.

What if Adventists became known as the volunteers who help those who have no voice, no clout, no resources, no food, no homes, no family, no husbands, no parents, no funding, no standing, no future? Rather than be known as the parsers of theological hair-splitting, obsessed with prophetic beasts, or known as people who don't eat certain foods, what if we were known for our incredible, loving selflessness? Our "help" ethic? Our instinctive people-focused priorities? Our families who volunteer together?

What a powerfully simple strategy. Volunteer right at home.

Tom, PLM and I have it figured out: helping those in need is far more effective than preaching about the beasts of Revelation and would draw much better press.

Tom and I are a little too old to be actively engaged (I shouldn't speak for Tom), but in the past when I suggested that the church members where I attend should be with Habitat for Humanity when they do most of the work on Saturdays, but that wasn't considered--because it was Sabbath! Overlooking that Jesus performed most of his miracles on that day. They did some work on Sundays, but missed out on the opportunity of working with many other church groups who are regularly pictured in our local paper.

Is Sabbath sacredness so "pure" that such good work can't be done?
Can someone explain that rationale?

Yes, Sabbath is so pure to the carnal criminal Pharisaical mentality. The SDA church can be the most dangerous organization if it turns members into twofold a child of HELL as the Pharisees of old.