Of Course Jesus welcomed sinners, even sinners with a history of sexual sin. But He added: "Go and sin no more!" The hype for this book contains no such suggestion. Loving the sinner and hating the sin while activity engaged in the sin doesn't square with Christ's admonition. The dust cover should give the potential buyer a better promise of a bottom-line of a person by Grace in control of his/her passions. Why else come to Jesus? Tom

The cliche is getting old and tired: "Love the sinner & hate the sin." This implies that there are grades of sin. Remeber when an SDA who remarried following divorce was engaging in active sin? Who is free of sin? And "actively engaging in sin" describes all of us, doesn't it? Ever get angry? Ever curt to someone? IOW, no human lives righteously here on this earth. That implication is that some do. Anyone want to step up and claim that?

Don't some SDAs qualify coffee drinking as sin? For those regularly users are they not "actively engaging in sin"? Substitute many behaviors.

Elaine

That cliche doesn't imply anything except the age and energy level of the reader. As an 18 year old virgin in the U.S. Army I was approached and propositioned four times by alleged SDA/s to engage in homosexual sex. They apparently observed me from a afar and noted that I did not engage in any Whore House ventures and thereby assumed my sexual preference.

Later at one of the SDA Senior Colleges I was apporached by
a full-time faculty with the same proposition and apparently the same assumptions.

In my career as a health sciences administration I had the
primary due for Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. So I have had to deal with homosexuality and many levels, including legal in which a faculty member sodomized a minor.

With the hate laws in place and our increasingly open society. Homosexual behavior and homosexual activism are
blatedly bold and in your face.

I am tired of the old saw: "God made me this way, He can save me this way." Obvously, I haven't read the book and I am unlikely to read it at this age. My point was the dust cover
seems to indicate that the straights need to get their act together not the Homosexuals.

O By the way, I drink coffee. A little story on that subject.
My dad was traveling by pullman overnight from Cleveland to
Boston with a delegation of the Union Conference President,
The Union Conference, Treasurer, and the Ministrial Sec.

At breakfast. The Union Conference president began the ordering: Postum, Oak Meal, dry toast. So it when around the
table in the dining car. When It became my dad's turn. He order, Coffee with cream, two eggs over hash brown, Whole Wheat Toast with apple jelly. Immediately, the Union Conference president spoke up and said; "I'd like to change my order please. I'll has the same as brother Zwemer and so it went around the table. The waiter got such a chuckle that when he got to dad again, he said: "sir is there anything you would like changed? Dad said, no thanks, I'm comfortable.

Elaine, if you were a 13 year old boy being sodomized would you equate that act with a cup of coffee either black or with cream or even a little Jack Daniels? Tom

Hi Tom!

I am amused by your story about your father and coffee. Keep these stories about him coming. He is--or was--a very impressive Christian gentleman!

I am not amused by some of your comments about our book "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives" for which I just emailed a 500+ word Subject Index from here in Adelaide, South Australia where I am enjoying a working vacation with my wife's family.

Here it is already December 24. Happy Christmas!

I think we need to focus on the true topics. Everyone condemns rape, homosexual or heterosexual. Everyone condemns unwanted sexual propositions, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Everyone condemns sexually unsafe schools, churches and work places, whether caused by homosexuals or heterosexuals. These are not the issues.

What possibilities for responsible Christian living are there for those who know they are lifelong homosexuals? This is the question.

Three answers are floating about among we SDAs at the moment: (1) heterosexual marriage, (2) celibacy and (3) a permanent, sexually exclusive and genuinely loving homosexual relationship that benefits the community as well as those within it.

All of the authors of our book--who are biological and social scientists as well as theologians, ethicists lawyers, pastors and other professionals--firmly reject option 1 even though it has been recommended by some church leaders.

The authors in our book are not of one view regarding options 2 and 3. Most, including myself, hold that both can be legitimate ways of dealing with a very difficult set of circumstances.

Others take mild and even very sharp exception to this stance. We deliberately included more than one viewpoint so that thoughtful Christians and others can make up their own minds.

We are pleased that even though the book is written by SDAs for SDAs, leaders in other denominations are taking a very keen and supportive interest in it and are recommending it to members of their own communities of faith.

The issues this book explores are contoversial at this time and intelligent people of good will--Christans and others--rightly are of more than one informed opinion.

This is OK by me. What is not OK from my point of view is a casual, caustic and condemnatory attitude that is irrelvant to the contents of our book. I doubt that this was your intention, however.

I have almost dispaired of having a positive exhange of views with people who have no first-hand experience with gay and lesbian SDAs and their relatives and friends who are truly seeking answers that are ethically credible from Christian points of view. None of these is the kind of homosexual person you report.

Some years ago a number of us published a similar book on abortion. We were vigorously criticized by some for this even though others in other denominations--including the PCA--responded favorably. Because it is so much more controversial in my view, I have been bracing for such an onslought regarding this book.

Perhaps it is on the way; however, even though this project has been well-known since our conference in January of 2006--which some top administrators in our church attended--I have not yet recieved even one word of rebuke.

Instead my wife and I, she more than me perhaps because she has served our church as a hospital chaplain--have quietly been approached by church leaders expressing their hope that the book will be of help to people they know of who are struggling with this set of issues, some of whom are in their own families.

I ask for your support, Tom. I need your help, not to advocate views with which you conscientously disagree but to encourage us all to consider these matters in prayerfully responsible ways.

Thank you for considering my request!

Dave

Thanks Dave.

I thought there was a commandment in the Garden: "Be fruitful and multiple". Homosexuality is a perversion of that gift.
We had a number of gay and lesbian faculty. Several of whom I worked with daily. One was celibate the other a predator. The lesbian group were well organized, aggressive, retaliatory, and particularly vindictive. That group ran a black SDA woman from the faculty by harrassment. Yes the group may be maligned. They certainly are in need of Grace of which we have soaked up more than our share. I an willing to extend them a Christian hand. I am not willing to encourage their sexual appetites under any circumstances.

Dave, you have my support to evangelize as you wish. I will be glad to treat any friend of yours as a friend of mine.
Certainly if we followed the Old Testament we would be stoning a lot more than just homosexuals.

My army experience and my administrative experiences lead me to believe that homosexuals have a strong anti-social attitude--thus a very difficult group to evangelize. Tom

Tom,

You and I are probably both at the age where we are quite comfortable in our on skin without the approval of others.
Personally knowing homosexuals of both sexes and having at least one of the above very close to me, I tell them that I care for them all as individuals (truly love at least one) and respect their right to their choices in the present age but I can not accept their lifestyle nor vote for it. I have read that you feel the same on the blog.

Neither do they need to accept my lifestyle if I am practicing a biblical sin.

Elaine, I suggest there are degrees of at least how sin was treated. None were stoned for stealing in the OT.

The scriptures define heterosexual adultery as sin, as well as practicing homosexual acts as examples.
" No one who is born of God PRACTICES sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot (PRACTICE- SUPPLIED) sin, because he is born of God." I John 3:9.

There is a difference between being a sinner and "practicing sin." PA Participle. My personal experience is that when "practicing" known sin I experience no real peace and I am thankful for that because I am pressed to repentance.
1 Jn.1:7-10.

Heb.10:14," For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (lit. "being made holy" (P.A. Participle)

Christ loves us where he finds us and loves us to much to let us stay there in darkness. To me, NOT accepting what the Bible calls sin and consenting that it is alright for others to "practice" sin is not Biblical Love in my opinion but co-enabling no matter what social sciences and some religious views call it.

A view from a sinner.

Simul Pector et Justus.

Having bought "The Flame of Yahweh", a book written by an Adventist on sexuality in the bible, I am glad to hear that we have another book coming out which is also gathering positive press. Best of all, "Christianity & Homosexuality has multiple authors and perspectives.

I was able to read the blog post text above (did you Tom?) which makes it quite clear that like "Abortion" this book gives space to several views.

I look forward to getting my copy!

It is also becoming rather tiresome to read about rape, either hetero or homo, when this subject is discussed. There also seems to be no acknowledgement that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality is rarely chosen as a lifestyle. Refusal to accept that there are others who are different is very simplistic. As long as either sexual orientation is considered merely a lifestyle choice it is demeaning of either hetero or homosexuality.

A sample question qualifies one's personal position:

At what time in your life do you remember consciously choosing your sexual orientation?

If you can honestly answer this question, you will be much nearer to understanding people who are different than you. Remember when Jesus was asked whether a man who was disabled whether he or his parents sinned, he said neither. If one is born with her sexual orientation already set, we are blaming someone for a condition with which she had no control; just a none of us were able to choose or sex before birth. There are factors in utero which neither parents or fetus control, unless one wishes to consider it an interpretation of "original sin."

Either sex has probably experienced a subtle, or not-so subtle proposition. Admittedly, same sex propositions, almost invariably male, are found to be repugnant. Is it because it threatens the male ego? Many psychologists say so, as I have yet to hear of another female being propositioned or feeliing threatened in the same manner. As a female, one's sexual orientation is of absolutely no interest to me. One's integrity is far more important, and denial of one's orientation is antithetical to personal integrity; a pretense.

This book already has a serious flaw as described by Mr. Larson:
Nobody takes "Option 1".

It is a legitimate path taken by many a person with same-sex attractions. Why was there nobody to present a case for it?

Human beings can do almost anything they put their minds to do as long as they have realistic expectations. It is possible for people with predominant attractions to their own sex to live in heterosexual marriage successfully.
Of course it won't be the same as for people who are naturally inclined otherwise, but why would one expect it to be?
And I am unwilling to buy nonsense about "secret trauma" (nonsense because it is vague and undefined while trying to be menacing at the same time).

(Unless someone want s to argue that the singular essence of marriage is to be fulfilled sexually to the utmost).

Check here for one such person:

http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/04/19/you-and-me-together/

Again, I think this is a terrible deficiency in the book from the get-go.

Tom,
The notion that something ow wrong with oneself is the most offensive thing you can broach in the "I'm okay, you're okay" generation.
Many homosexuals don't like the idea that something could be wrong with them at all.
That is your first hurdle.

My experience has also been that many homosexuals are broken in one way or another.

Believe it or not, I think it is as a result of a combination of things.

Given that a lot of how we face life is determined by early childhood (a lot of our neuroses etc.), I think the same plays out for many homosexuals.

People who spend their lives hiding and masking and deceiving will find it hard to operate in any other way (or will certainly have issues along those lines that will manifest themselves from time to time).

Had any of them grown up in an open society, I am willing to bet they would have been a lot different in terms of behavior etc.

Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their behaviors, but straights do have a lot of reforming to do themselves (even without having to come to a position of approval of gay relationships).

Because leftists like to wield guilt as a club (much like the caricature of Catholicism), most people will be resistant to any effort to throw yet another bout of blame on them. But one thing is clear to me here:

SDAs do need to do a lot of talking and educating about this topic.
Many just need an assurance that people know they exist, know they struggle, and care enough to help them.

That is the most pressing need.

Unfortunately, I have also found that political gays/gay advocates know nothing of degrees.
If this book ever attempts to lay out a spiritual basis for gay relationships, it might as well not go to print at all. SDAs aren't even sure that gays exist to begin with.

By the way, the link I gave is example of "one such person" who is living heterosexually by choice and has a post about how he describes himself and his life.

It is not "one such person" who believes in "secret trauma".

Here is another post of his:

http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/12/21/letter-in-todays-church-times/

Excerpt:

"In contrast to those who have seemingly dedicated their lives to rejecting the words of Scripture and are therefore obviously troubled by those who might call them to a holy life, many of us with same-sex attraction have lived simple, celibate lives in the full knowledge that the surrender of our desires to God is not “psychological onslaught” but rather the path of grace.

Some of us have then, by the mercy of God, moved from the single life to one of marriage as the church teaches and others have remained unmarried but content in a singleness that glorifies Christ in its surrender to him. Such a path is not without its struggles, but ultimately it is the journey that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself commends when in a recent interview he clearly stated “Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the bible, gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practicing homosexual relationships don’t.”."

Yes I read the blog that started this thread. That is why I responded. Yes it did suggest several pathways. All of which were implicitly inclusive without even a suggestion of change or self-discipline.

No reference to Old Testament or even to Paul's admonision to the church at Corinth in 2 Chorinthians. Perversion of the "Ordinance of Marriage" distroys God's attempt to use creative powers to help mankind understand and appreciate God's pro-creative power.

If the plain words of Scripture are offensive, I'm sorry.
Now how to reach them in today's permissive environment is a worthy enterprise. I just wished the promotional piece
had been less of an endorsement or compromise. Somewhere there is , to Elaine's disgust, a statement "Calling Sin by its right name." Cheek by jowl to "True to duty as the needle to the pole." Jesus Christ died for homosexuals not for homosexuallity. Tom

It is a great delight to know that Adventists are beginning to take the issue of homosexuality and Christian community seriously - instead of issuing "statements" that advocate antiquated understandings of human sexuality and bigoted interpretations of Scripture - finally an honest assessment and attempt at productive dialogue in the church has been published – however, sadly enough, this comes not from the leadership of our elected leaders.

While it truly alarms me that the "leaders" of our church, at the level of the General Conference - the so-called highest form of government God has on this earth - are not the ones pushing for this dialogue. It is members like you and me and those who contribute to Adventist Forums and Seventh-day Adventist Kinship International. The laity is concerning itself most with the message of grace and love from the Gospels; the fact that our beloved General Conference is too blinded by dollar signs and notions of "unity" and are unable to exhibit Christian integrity and leadership on the issue of homosexuality within our Adventist community is appalling, reprehensible, and must not be permitted to continue as our church opens dialogue on this matter.

Some may feel that that may be a bit harsh, but harsher still, is the history of inaction, intolerance, and bigotry that the elected leadership of the GC has projected when dealing with this most sensitive issue – the real issue that we as Adventists ought be outraged about is that our church has permitted a policy on homosexuality that leads not to answers or actualized lives for our GLBT Adventist brothers and sisters, but rather, joins the ranks of the Religious Right and organizations such as “Focus on the Family” in demeaning, ostracizing, and – at our worst moments in history, the ex-gay ministries, and such – have lead to some of our members opting to not only leave the church but also end their lives as a result of the pain and suffering that the absence of genuine dialogue and integrity-driven leadership by elected members of the GC.

Leadership on this issue from the laity has finally culminated into a published form - 'Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives.’ Those members of the church who used to be (and still are) in prominent positions of influence - and most of which have well-established themselves and, more importantly for their and their families’ sake, protected themselves from backlash - are now, in the later years of their lives "coming out," so to speak, on the issue of homosexuality and the church.

I applaud and praise the work that those behind 'Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives' have done to present this work to our membership; I urge those Adventists who take seriously the call of their Saviour to, "love one another," to read and start discussions about this important issue in your local church.

For our dear Adventist Church must resolve the issues of gender and sexuality discrimination or it shall face irrelevancy in the twenty-first century - the world is truly going to be watching our progress on this issue, let us be that peculiar people we so vehemently claim to be and be a church of inclusion, of love, of tolerance, of the Gospel message, of Christ and Him risen for all of humanity. This is our divine test, what shall history and God judge of our actions (or inaction) from the publication of this book forth?

I'm very interested in this book. I'm thrilled Adventists are making a solid contribution to this important conversation.

I find it heartening that this topic always gets a lot of interest whenever it pops up on blogs--engagement is the way forward. But I also find it disheartening that old stereotypes continue to get perpetuated and old cliches tossed around (love the sinner; hate the sin, as if that's truly possible).

I'm also quite curious why Tom wants to rely so heavily on the Genesis account to condemn homosexuality as a perversion--if we applied Genesis across the board, wouldn't we have an issue with incest?

I really appreciated the conversation posted in the collegiate blog recently about the town hall at PUC on this topic. All of the faculty panel members (from religion, psychology, and anthropology) emphasized that sexuality as a whole is spiritual, and we are all challenged to be ethical, respectful, and responsible in our sexual relationships. That's a challenge for everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I look forward to the discussions in this book!

Daneen

I referenced Genesis only to demonstrate God's intent in sexuallity--be fruitful and multiple. I could have reference Paul in Romans 1.

I wonder why if someone disagrees they are biogted and if they agree they are forward thinking. How far ahead of God do ya'll want to think?

Certainly, this man is four square in favor of bringing salvation to all sinners. I am also equally militantly against
open sin in the church. That includes incest. Paul was quite clear on that as well.

Love the sinner and hate the sin is possible: another story about dad. He was the youngest in a family of eight children. His oldest brother became a sailor on the Great Lakes and during the fall and winter seasons he was a barker at the carnavals. All the family, but my dad, were Dutch Reform. Dad was SDA. Of course, Uncle Walter had no home. So at Thanksgiving and Christmas he made his home with us. No one else in the family would have him in their house. Several times dad had to bail Walter out of jail. While in our home Uncle Walter would attend the SDA at E.M.C. with us. I held the hymnal with him. Both Walter and Dad were tenors. What a thrill to stand between those two giants and hear the Gospel sung as if it were high opero. The day came when Walter couldn't keep up on ship and the carnie tour was too much.
He retired to a little room in Detroit. One day he read of an evangelistic service at the SDA church. He went. He was converted. He gave up cigars, snuff, and liguor. He didn't say a word to us until Thanksgiving when he arrived as usual with a 25 lb turkey. The first thing he asked as: "Ruth smell anything different?" Mother said, "no smoke". Then the story spilled out. Yet for 25 years we took in Walter smoke, drink and all. I know he will be in heaven but I am not sure heaven is ready to be repainted--Walter's favorate pastime in retirement. Tom

Tom
Is it your conviction that the gay and lesbian people you encountered in your army and admimistrative experiences constitute a sufficiently large and representative sample to justify the conclusion that all homosexuals men and women in the entire world "have a strong antisocial attitude?"
Dave

Elaine,

on a lighter note...your question,"At what time in your life do you remember consciously choosing your sexual orientation?"

I'm not sure about choosing but I sure enjoyed the girl next door and and my 5 female cousins playing doctor with me when I was about 5. :~)

To all a Merry Christmas and... to you Tom and... to you already in Adelaide David.

I am the mother of a 15 year old gay son. Since he was 3 years old, I have known that this was a possibility, and though I have prayed every day of his life for God to spare him this difficult path, He has not chosen to do so.

As he was growing up, I would see the panic on his face when we had guests over, and the kids would want to play in his room, and he would realize that he had forgotten to hide his little doll that he played with. When he was 5, and I sighed when he asked if he could wear my tights, and he asked me what was wrong, and I said nothing, and he asked if I was afraid that he would always be this way. When he was 11, and it became clear by his internet use (which we monitor) that he was searching for answers, and I talked to him about the possibility that he was gay, and he needed clarification as to what being gay meant, and he sobbed and sobbed and sobbed, although telling me he thought he could a love a girl. When he was 13, and he told me he still didn't know if he was gay, but that he did know he was different, and that he figured it was okay - that he wasn't very social anyway and figured he would live his life alone, with his dog.

Now he's 15, and this past year, he decided that he was no longer willing to live in hiding and in fear, and he was ready to come out. And I have been so proud of him - of his bravery, of his courage - of the fine young upright Christian gay man that he is.

It is so very clear to me that this is not a choice, and being not a choice, it is also clear to me that it cannot be a sin, regardless of how some may choose to interpret 3 passages in the entire Bible regarding the subject of homosexuality. I realize that this is difficult for those who believe that every word in the Bible fell from the mouth of God ( an interesting concept to me given that the original documents were not written in King James English, and have been translated and interpreted through thousands of years and through several iterations) but I actually do not have a problem with people who choose to believe homosexuality a sin. That is their right to do so. But I am also very clear that the Bible instructs us to judge not, lest we be judged. So for those who believe homosexuality to be a sin - do not live a homosexual lifestyle. But keep your judgments away from those who are right with their God, and living the life they were given in the best way that they can.

I am also very disturbed by this continual lumping together of homosexuality with pedophilia and perversion and predatory behavior. It is true, given society's views, that many homosexuals living their lives in the shadows and in fear grow to be antisocial. Wouldn't you? But that is not due to their homosexual natures, but rather to society's persecution and hatred of homosexuals. Pedophiles, rapists - those are people hurting others. Homosexuals loving someone of their own gender, in a respectful mutually loving relationship - how does that hurt you? And let us remember that the majority of pedophiles and rapists are heterosexual.

As my son has struggled this year, I told him that I had asked God to spare him this road, but that He obviously did not do so. I told him that I asked God why, and that I thought the answer was that God wanted us to hopefully change the little corner of the world that we live in. That by speaking out, maybe we could lessen the hate and the persecution that gays face. That God knew we were equipped with our faith and our love to maybe make a difference.

Thank you so much for sharing your story of mothering a gay son. It sounds like your son is very lucky to be raised by a woman with such compassion and love--if only every child, especially gay children, could be so accepted.

I don't have children, but I have many friends who are gay, and I really believe it's difficult to have a serious conversation about this topic unless you know and love someone who is gay, otherwise it is far to easy to toss out scripture or judgments, or often both.

I too can respect people who feel that their honest searching of scripture and their heart says that homosexuals are called to a life of abstinence. But, that has not been my conclusion after an honest searching of scripture and my heart.

Have you seen the film For the Bible Tells Me So? It's a poignant and critically-acclaimed documentary that just came out about Christian families who discover they have a gay or lesbian child. There was a long conversation about this film on the "old" Spectrum blog, and many nuances of scripture and culture were debated. You can read that here:
http://spectrummagazine.org/reviews/film/2007/10/19/does_bible_condemn_h...

Pat--I think Elaine's point is that the fact that you can remember liking "doctor" with your female friends/cousins shows that you were clearly born heterosexual, just as the woman who posted above knows that her son was born homosexual.

Another anonymous commenter wanted to know why the editors/authors of this new book universally condemn "option 1" which is heterosexual marriage as a way to deal with homosexuality. He felt that this was a valid option. I want to know why? Why would we encourage someone to live a lie? And that is a lie that ends up hurting his or her spouse and their children because ultimately the truth will come out. Why would we encourage a marriage under false pretenses but condemn the loving, monogamous relationship of two people of the same gender who love each other and want to commit?

Anonymous has spoken from her heart. The rest of us have no right to speak as she does, one who has lived with a son who is gay.

I have several very good, long-time friends who have gay children. It's not a matter of "accepting"or "not accepting," they must accept and continue to love and support their children. Sadly, there have been instances where Christian, even SDA parents have rejected their gay children. Is it less sad to have one's church family reject them?

God help us to love those we DON'T understand and those that are not quite like we are. None of us will be sinless until we are glorified, so stop the pretense of calling OTHER'S sins by their right name--the holier than thou attitude of assigning certain other people's "sins by their right name" is non-Christian and demeaning.

To reduce marriage to mere copulation, which is what is nearly always addressed in homosexuality, is to return to the idea in Genesis: "be fruitful and multiply" which is the Catholic position: all sexual relations must be open to procreation. What about the millions of marriages that cannot, and will never procreate for age or other reasons? Is it impossible to understand that same sex partnerships may also have much more than physical intimacies just as heterosexual marriages?

Daneen said:

"Another anonymous commenter wanted to know why the editors/authors of this new book universally condemn "option 1" which is heterosexual marriage as a way to deal with homosexuality. He felt that this was a valid option. I want to know why? Why would we encourage someone to live a lie? And that is a lie that ends up hurting his or her spouse and their children because ultimately the truth will come out. Why would we encourage a marriage under false pretenses but condemn the loving, monogamous relationship of two people of the same gender who love each other and want to commit?

Posted by: Daneen Akers | 24 December 2007 at 4:54

My reply:

This is a common liberal catchphrase (very common for an ideology that supposes iself to be non-formulaic).

I suppose you never have read the links I showed you. I hope you are not afraid fo new ideas.

What, pray tell, is "living a lie"?

A marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman who pledge to love each other for better or for worse (or at least they used to).
It is not a contract about "maximum sexual pleasure" (despite popular culture).

Anyone who is an honoest reader of this issue would know that virtually all "recommended" marriages by people who have chosen not to act on their homosexual urges are full disclosure marriages; whnere both parties know exactly what they are bringing to the table.
There is no "lie" there.
That has been the M.O. of the "ex-gay" movement almost from day one: accountability and disclosure (almost too much sometimes).

There are significant numbers of peopl ewith predominantly same-sex feelings who have been able to function in heterosexual marriages.
Of course these marriages are not "the same" as if both partners are heterosexual, but why would you expect taht to be so?
(And the question of sexual performance has been dealt with already as well. It would do you well nto to insulate yourself from viewpoints that seem tot threaten your worldview. Again, click on the link to Peter Ould for one example.)

Elaine said this:

"Anonymous has spoken from her heart. The rest of us have no right to speak as she does, one who has lived with a son who is gay. "

My reply:

I hope you never say a thing like that again.
Polemicist Ann Coulter (of all people) exposed this dishonest and underhanded (yet bullying at the same time) tactic of left-of-center political debate once. Let me get it out int he open so that you will never attempt it again.

It's called "the victim as th eone with absolute moral authority".

In this scenario, one just posits that th eonly people qualified to speak on a topic are those people who have been "victimized"; and furthermore (and most importantly) are immune to criticism from others.

As such, they try to stifle dissent by making you feel that you are rude, insensitive an dout-of-place to have an opinion that differs fromthat of the victim.

Thsi is why they sent the "Jersey Girls" to criticize George Bush on his war policies, hoping that the opposition would be too timid to disagree publicly with a 9/11 widow (or several of them).

They tried that again with S-CHIP, bringing a little boy to testify to Congress abotu how the bill would ease his immense suffering.

Times being different from 20 years ago, none of those tactics worked. The "Jersey Girls" are now more irrelevant than at any time since 9/11. The S-CHIP thing didn't work either.

I will not cow to it here.

I have just as much right to speak about the issue as she does, and so does everyone else here.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pull a stunt like that; and I hope you are ashamed of it and never try that tactic again.

To Anonymous:

Whether or not your son was "born that way" is irrelevant to scripture and to the rightness and wrongness of homosexual activity.
Certainly the church does not call "being homosexual" a sin--as you can read in the official statement.

I only hope that you do not convey to him that homosexual relationships are a part of God's plan because they are not.

(And to your point about the Bible. It is very old and has been dealt with ad nauseum over time. The Bible is the most accurate and best preserved ancient document--better than Homer's Illiad or any history of Alexander the Great.
If you claim to "know nothing" about what God intends for human sexuality because of unnamed and unspecified "errors" in the Bible, then you cannot claim to know with certainty the things you wish to like about the Bible--i.e. that God is Love etc.)

The Bible is very clear that if you see your brither living in sin that you must tell him so.
God will "judge" him, but "judging" is not the same as criticism or admonishing.

Please re-read what I wrote: "The rest of us have no right to speak as she spoke."

Neither I, nor anyone here who is not gay or who has no child who is, can ever understand the situation as they do. Just as someone who callously says to someone who has lost a child
"I understand what you feel." It is impossible for me, or anyone on the outside looking in to comprehend another's feeling sufficient to expound on it. They may interpret their view of the Bible, but that is irrelevant, IMO, to understanding an experience first hand. So, FYI, it may be repeated again; be forewarned if it applies to you.

If a homosexual desires a heterosexual marriage, it is a worse sin if not disclosed prior to the marriage. This has happened in an effort to "cure" the homosexual. What a travesty for the unsuspecting partner to enter into a relationship with such false pretenses, often bringing children into the world. How many times has it actually "worked" and how many more has it failed, leaving broken homes and devasatated lives!

Thanks Daneen,

<>

I also enjoyed playing with the dolls before the "doctor" visit.

Oh well, not making "light" of the subject.

As a homosexual and an Adventist I have - through the providence of God Almighty - been able to understand that homosexuality and Christianity are not mutually exclusive terms, that one can be a genuine, "true" Christian and live a life full of dignity and God's grace with a partner of the same gender.

Sensing a call to the ministry in the Adventist Church when I was a young child at Adventist camp, I have always had a desire to understand "these feelings" and what they meant to my Christian experience. My church had no answers for me, my pastor had no direction - quite ironic that I had to seek out the spiritual guidance of a Unitarian-Universalist and a Lutheran pastor to realize that it was the "Church" - composed of broken men and women - who had an issue with homosexuality and not God.

This was a huge step forward in the process of self-acceptance for who I am and for who God respects and loves me as. Many of my Adventist brothers and sisters do welcome me with my sexuality into their lives and relationships, but I know that there are many still - who rise to positions of prominence in theology, leadership, & ministry - in our church that would not welcome me with open arms.

The bottom line for people who think like you Tom, and there are many, is this, "I'm telling you that I know that I have a predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. You have no reason to believe that I am to lie here, and if I were, what would the motivation be and would that motive really resonate with me or be a goal that I want to actively pursue? The other issue is that I love God with all of my heart and want to (and do) serve Him, however my church - the Adventists - have placed limitations on what that "service" can entail. Imagine what it would feel like to be a member of something you truly believed in and that those who held positions of influence and prominence wouldn't let you genuinely become a part of that "something," in this case the leadership, ministry, academia of the Adventist Church."

How can you and others, in love, address those concerns with more than platatudes and misappliation of Scripture text? Because I can tell you that, at times it is overwhelming, when society rejects your rights because of your sexual orientation, when you're thought of as a perverted person or equitable to someone with an addiction that, "needs help," and then you turn to the one place where compassion, tolerance, love, and acceptance ought be in full expression -the church- and instead find that if your sexuality were known by the entire congregation you might face excommunication from the church membership. . . doesn't make you all warm and fuzzy inside.

It's not just about Bible verses or scientific findings - it's about people, lest we forget. And above any quote or scientific report I choose to value the lives and dignity of people - following after the example of my Lord.

These were some of my thoughts as I read through this post and subsequent threads.

Merry Christmas to all.

Anonymous--I find it interesting that you advocate that homosexuals try "full-disclosure" heterosexual marriage, yet you won't even disclose your name. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt that if you were talking to the mother of a gay son face-to-face, your tone and stance would lose its vitriol and barbed edges. Surely, no matter how your hermeneutic and interpretation of scripture's message about homosexuality, you'd agree that we are to treat each other with love?

If feels that we can easily get tempted into name-calling, scripture-bashing, and intolerance by cultural wedge issues like this one--not to mention abortion (Rove exploited this fact brilliantly in the last election). However, no matter how we come away from our careful reading of scripture (and thoughtful, serious, Bible-believing Christians do come away with different interpretations), it's very clear that homosexuality is a minor issue at best in the Bible. It's mentioned six or seven times in total. God is much, much more concerned with how we treat each other, how we care for the poor and oppressed among us (homosexuals fit that group), and just simply how we love. I'd encourage us to keep that bigger picture in mind.

David

Not until I entered this thread and received the beating I have taken among friends--Tom

Sorry I didn't tell about the comfort and assurance I attempted to bring to a church member dying of AIDS. Nor of the work I did in bringing a renown infectious disease specialist to campus to help fight the AIDS problem in East Georgia. At one point in time we had one person dying of AIDS or AIDS connected disease each day at the Medical Center Hospital. I don't know the current data.

I had one faculty friend who was the social conscience of the entire Campus.

Other than that David:

The Cable T.V. Evangelists and the homosexual community were made for each other.

Those outside the gates of heaven are exactly like those inside except for Faith in the redemptive and cleansing blood of the Lamb.

My comments were fellowship with sinners is what Christ did.
To approve sinning Christ did not. Tom

Now, please, unless you and the crowd on your side
are as bigoted as you claim I am, you will let me be tend to my flock on Christmas Eve. I hope every soul on earth finds peace in the Assurance of the birth of the Christ Child.

Merry Christmas Sinners All!

GAY ADVENTIST: I wish we all took our spirituality and sexuality as thoughtfully and prayerfully as you do!

ANNONYMOUS: Once when I was a seminary student a teacher of pastoral care wrote on the blackboard (Yes, in those days we still had blackboards!) the following words:

"Acceptance + Confrontation = Growth"

Over the years I have learned in my ministry, often the hard way, that the formula is actually something like this:

"Acceptance + Acceptance + Acceptance = Growth"

This does not mean that I have to approve of conduct I hold to be immoral. It does mean that I have found it very difficult to contribute to what I take to be positive change in another person's life after I have verbally abused him or her.

ALEX: I LOVE the smaller font!

ELAINE: Thank you for the holiday greetings, even to me "Down Under!"

EVERYBODY: Merry Christmas from Adelaide, South Australia! where the day has already dawned bright and cool following several days of rain that prompted much joy and gladness because of the long drought.

GOD IS NOT DEAD AND NEITHER ARE WE!

Anonymous--I find it interesting that you advocate that homosexuals try "full-disclosure" heterosexual marriage, yet you won't even disclose your name. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt that if you were talking to the mother of a gay son face-to-face, your tone and stance would lose its vitriol and barbed edges. Surely, no matter how your hermeneutic and interpretation of scripture's message about homosexuality, you'd agree that we are to treat each other with love?

If feels that we can easily get tempted into name-calling, scripture-bashing, and intolerance by cultural wedge issues like this one--not to mention abortion (Rove exploited this fact brilliantly in the last election). However, no matter how we come away from our careful reading of scripture (and thoughtful, serious, Bible-believing Christians do come away with different interpretations), it's very clear that homosexuality is a minor issue at best in the Bible. It's mentioned six or seven times in total. God is much, much more concerned with how we treat each other, how we care for the poor and oppressed among us (homosexuals fit that group), and just simply how we love. I'd encourage us to keep that bigger picture in mind.
Posted by: Daneen Akers | 24 December 2007 at 8:49

I rely:

Daneen, I am not an "advocate" of anything but obedience to God.

If you were a little less upset at my point of view, you wouldn't read your emotions into my post. This is at the every "worst" matter-of-fact for me.
I am not trying to be "angry" or "snippy".
If I were to meet her face-to-face I would tell her the same thing in essence (assuming I would even be talking about
this with her).

I do find it curious that people keep repeating that we must all "show love". Is this not a given?
Even people who do not "show love" know that they should.
Maybe people should then point out where the offender is not "showing love" and how they could go about doing so. That would be more helpful.

To me, incidentally, it is not "showing love" to tell someone that it is okay to have a homosexual relationship when you know it isn't. That would be hateful.

Another artifact of these discussions is the accusation that this is something the church is singularly "obsessed with". I am yet to be convinced of this. Homosexuality is actually a subject that I have found most people would rather avoid (especially those eternally polite SDAs).
When people say homosexuality is a sin, they are no more convinced of it than they are that stealing is wrong. It's just that nobody argues about stealing.

Dave you said >>ELAINE: Thank you for the holiday greetings, even to me "Down Under!"<<

That was me Dave! I feel left out!

Ask your wife if they know the Verco family in Adelaide? They are non Adventist and I practiced with their "agnostic" catholic son in Hong Kong...He is a periodontist.

He probably won't claim knowing me, although still a dear friend to me but haven't seen or spoken to him in 10+ years, but if they know the family tell Bill hello for me and that I still believe in the creation week of mankind! To which I always got, "You dirty bugger!"

regards,

pat

Anonnymous@11,

It is not a given that all Christians understand that we must “show love.” Many Christians are quite proud of their views – in a very offensive way; they claim to have the final answer to all matters and such a perspective cannot be respected, spiritually by the Adventist (and I believe Christian) principle of ‘Present Truth,’ or intellectually by the dictums of rigorous academics. This far from “curious,” as you find it, is truly an essential point of beginning before one discusses cultural, historical, scientific, and scriptural issues.

With individuals like the Westboro Baptist Church (whose actions are the linear progression, albeit taken to its extreme, of the belief that homosexuality is completely repugnant and sinful in the eyes of God) it is very important to establish a level of mutual respect between two parties in a disagreement – approaching things “in love,” as Christians, accomplishes that goal.

You suggest that, “Maybe people should then point out where the offender is not "showing love" and how they could go about doing so. That would be more helpful.” It does not show love to project one’s salvation. This is a truly arrogant position to take, that you understand fully, with all your human limitations, what God desires in the matter of salvation. I’m not arrogant enough to claim such a position of ecclesiastical authority and robe God of His judgment and instead place my limited understanding of things as the paradigm by which sin is to be judged – that is a rather slippery-slope approach to the whole matter of salvation.
You state that, “To me, incidentally, it is not "showing love" to tell someone that it is okay to have a homosexual relationship when you know it isn't. That would be hateful.” The question of how do you come to definitively know that, when so many earnest theologians (with doctoral degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Drew, Yale, Oxford etc.), GLBT Christians, ministers, Bishops, Cardinals, even some Popes, have not been able to come to such a conclusive opinion on the matter?

How is it “hateful” to submit yourself to God, as so many GLBT Christians have on the matter of their sexuality, and prayerfully come to a resolution on the matter between you and God? If a homosexual Christian can truthfully say that in their hearts and in their spiritual life and relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ that they have not a problem between them and their God with their sexuality, then who are you or the Church to question that private matter between God and the believer? Once again, quite an arrogant position to take, would you agree?

Another question I would have for you and others that share your conviction of the “great sin of homosexuality” would be to ask – what does it matter to you? This is, indeed, an important question. You are curious about why people say to “show love” in this matter – which understanding that homophobia exists and that many who have opinions on the matter of homosexuality being a sin are ignorant of the meaning of the Scriptures used so commonly to allegedly “condemn” homosexuality nor are they aware of the current scientific findings on the matter it would seem to follow (from pure reason) that in matters that we find ourselves uninformed and ignorant of the complete issue that we would proceed in our disagreements with a sense of humility and a spirit that is willing to be led by God to greater knowledge (Present Truth?) on the matter -, but I wonder why you find it not as curious that people care so much about someone’s sexuality when those individuals – the homosexuals – living committed lives with life-partners pose no treat to the structure or unity of Christianity.

“Another artifact of these discussions is the accusation that this is something the church is singularly "obsessed with". I am yet to be convinced of this.” It is not that “the church” is obsessed with this issue, it is that alleged, self-proclaimed “Christian” leaders are. People like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Farwell – they seem to be obsessed with this issue of homosexuality – in fact; many Christians, from the leadership of these individuals, have come to believe that homosexuality and the realization of homosexual rights (as citizens of nations, members of the human family, and dignified persons in the eyes of God) is a sign that the end is upon us.

“Homosexuality is actually a subject that I have found most people would rather avoid.” This is sadly true, but so too was this the case with the inquisition, the crusades, slavery, women’s rights, gender equality issues, religious wars etc. should not the Church lead on matters of injustice, social inequality, and those who are disenfranchised. Does not the prophet Isaiah write, “Learn to do good; seek justice; correct oppression; defend the fatherless; plead the widow’s cause?” (1:17) Does this mean that because these issues are not popular with “eternally polite SDAs (or Christians in general) that the Church not lead on these issues? Christ has said to us that, “by this you will know that they are my people, if they have love for one another” is it ‘loving’ to neglect the problems of others because it isn’t popular with the majority of the membership? I fear the day that the Church represents the popular opinions and ceases to be inclusive and representative of all, just as Christ was.

“When people say homosexuality is a sin, they are no more convinced of it than they are that stealing is wrong. It's just that nobody argues about stealing.” It would seem that many a preacher who advocates the eternal damnation of sinners – including those who hold homosexuality to be a sin and thus also homosexuals – would be fully convicted that homosexuals are going to hell – that is the position of the conservative faction in Christendom.

You know, after reading texts like 1 Corinthians 6:9, would you really hand this book over to God (along with, say, a few Spong essays and the latest thinking from our centers of learning and say "Here God, have a read."?

If the Bible cannot be read plainly and sensibly, then it should not be read at all.
I suppose that was the enemy's plan all along, since his mortal enemy is The Word.

If God can make no demands of us in plain English (or any other language for that matter), if He must be subject to our textual criticism, then He is no longer anywhere near Sovereign anymore.

Westboro, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell all are red herrings (modern "Proxy" Christian bogey-people for those who want something to attack).

In the end it will only matter what the word of God says.

Anoymous@11,

I feel you have stated it well. To me true repentance is a "growing" exercise and it is learning to believe that what God says in His word is Love. It is learning to say, what you say God... is true.

As Eve & Adam sought other ways to find liberty and satisfaction through Satan's reframed statements and questions, so do we seek autonomy from His will.

God's love is always found intertwined with obedience to His expressed will and not merely my desired experiences.I am still learning all that principle and experience means in my journey with Him and others by His grace.

In that growth process what gives me joy and hope is God's longsuffering and the fact that the Father now reckons/sees me as obedient and perfect in His Son by faith. Thank you for that "Christmas Gift of Acceptance"- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Merry Christmas to all! Christ is Christmas!

PAT

I'm sorry!

Thank YOU for your holiday greetings that have reached us here in Adelaide. I hope this is a good holiday season for you.

I will check with my wife about the Verco family. There may be other ways we can locate them as well.

All the best!

Dave

Allow me a few general observations on this sort of discussion and on it’s participants and on why discussion does and does not work. All general. No one here is being singled out. (except where specified)

Soon enough, is my experience, the pejorative “bigot” -- or bigoted -- will be employed. I think it’s obvious which “side” (lets not pretend that by broadly delineating two streams of thought we’re being divisive) uses it against the other. Consider a few definitions:

bigoted ---> def: obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions
(obstinate ---> def: stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or chosen course of action, despite attempts to persuade one to do so…
prejudice ---> def: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience)

It has become clear, at least to me, that this descriptor is apt for many on both sides of this discussion. If the cost of having an opinion is to be labeled a bigot, do we relinquish the discussion to those with no opinions at all? Further, is a discussion a “discussion” at all if the outcome and conclusion is predetermined?

I’m hearing, in Dave Larson, that he too finds these dynamics unhealthy. Besides; if we want the Romans 14:5 idea that “…. each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” to apply to us, we need to let it apply also to the one with whom we disagree.

Second, I really appreciate Dr Tom Z’s story of being in the Army. The very fact that he did not frequent the typical places for release of sexual tension (whore houses) caused some to believe he was therefore homosexual. I would like to emphasize, more than it has been already by Tom, that the only way this happens is under the assumption that all humans are somehow going to act -- are almost obligated to act, as if they have no choice -- on whatever sexual urges they have. This assumption runs strongly through those hold that "gay is OK. just go with it". That there is a category, nobly modeled by Dr Tom in the Army, of disciplined self denial is scarcely even noticed -- let alone seen as a live option. This, unfortunately, undermines the stance that homosexual practice is somehow just fine with God if that is ones inclination.

Third, I appreciate Anonymous’ calling out as an inherent bias the notion that option #1 is not relevant. I had the same reaction and appreciate his/her sharing of the website. Sure enough, those who debunk this option report stories of those who entered such unions without full disclosure; the very thing Anonymous specifically said he was NOT talking about. Please.

Fourth, I’m puzzled by the exchange between Anonymous and Elaine wherein Elaine, seeking to be supportive to Anonymous-mother-of-gay-son, implies that no one has a right to challenge the mom’s conclusions because it is her life and experience. This is a frivolous appeal to emotion and by logic cannot work. Why? Well, the same would have to hold for ANY parent of a gay child -- would it not? And I know a father who, upon discovery that his son was gay, totally cut him off. Treated him as if he were dead -- using Luke 15:24 as his “text”. And he has plenty of friends who support him in his actions -- seen by them as a noble stand for principle. When confronted that he’s not being very Christlike, he says he’s going more with the advice of Paul in 1 Cor 5:5… Yeah it makes me want to puke, but if I empower one parent’s actions because he IS parent, how can I not endorse all? Just a call to use better arguments I guess. For me, the heart of this anonymous mother seeking to help and love her son is enough. May I not embrace both her and her son without embracing all her conclusions and theology? Seems a path for this option must be left open by all -- if true discussion is to be had. Hope this observation is not seen a demeaning Anonymous mother.

Fifth, perhaps no phrase encapsulates the enormous understanding gap between the two “camps” (again; lets not pretend that by broadly delineating two streams of thought we’re being divisive) than this one: “love the sinner/hate the sin”. For myself, no six words capture it better; yet it is abhorred by some, perhaps many. Cliche? -- sure. But also contains great truth? Absolutely. To those who hate the phrase, tell me if you do not practice this very dynamic (albeit in a diluted form here) when you are able to say you can love those with whom you disagree -- yet at the same time feel welcome and free to despise and hate their conclusions and actions? Sure you do...

So, thanks to all who have risked speaking up here. Thanks for speaking honestly of your convictions.

Merry Christmas… (waiting for kids to rise and shine!)

Do we practice self-hate? If we are honest in saying "love the sinner yet hate the sin," pray tell, how can a person be separated from who he is? That's synonomous for those who accept the theory of "original sin" that we are inherently sinful and damned from birth. With that concept, how does one separate a distinct personal entity? If, by the act of birth one is automatically a sinner, then it is impossible to separate a sinner from an inborn sin. Where is the logic?

Yes, I repeat, no one who is not gay or a parent of one, can ever understand the deep emotional trauma that results. A well-known teacher once said, "your theology may be wrong, but love is never wrong." Now apply that to your theological position on homosexuality, the state of the dead or any favorite doctrinal belief (BTW, the church has no statement in its fundamental beliefs on this subject, nor is there one on abortion.)

The time will come when this will no longer be a divisive issue for the church at large; just as divorced and remarried people were formerly disfellowshipped, the church will come to terms with humans and realize that to love and accept them, it is unnecessary to hear their personal stories. In the past, divorced members wishing to remarry had to plead their case and air all their "dirty linen" before a church board: an inquisition, no less.

We will not know of someone's sexual orientation unless they flaunt it, and within the church where are those who use such tactics? The ones I know are quietly going about their lives AND contributing to the worship of the church. They are my brothers and sisters and it is totally unnecessary for me or anyone outside their respective families to offer advice or reproach.

I am sorry I entered this blog. Immediate classification prejudices all subsequent thinking: of which all participants have been guilty.

I entered to make it clear that God has no special accommodation for homosexuals. There is only one way to God and that is through Jesus Christ: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I went on to reiterate God’s intent in creating male and female. Gen. 1:27, 28

Both the Old and the New Testament are clear on the point that perversion of His intention is sin.
Citations should not be necessary for this audience:
Gen. Chapters 18, 19; Ex. 22: 19; Lev. 18:22;
Romans 1: 22-27; I Cor. 5: 1-2

The principal issue with Cable T.V. Evangelists in the mould of Jerry Falwell is that they preach sin and not salvation. Furthermore, they set themselves apart for the rest of mankind by declaring themselves the “Moral Majority” which of course is an oxymoron. “There is none righteous, no not one!” Furthermore, they charge sexual perversion as the cause of extremes in nature—much like Cotton Mather.

The response to my entries has been over the top—al a Falwell: Labeling those who disagree with the accommodation of homosexuals as bigots, and beyond; thus, placing themselves among the Moral Majority.

If God can save me. He certainly can save homosexuals. I do believe that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ includes, confessing our sins, and walking in the light of God’s intention.

Certainly, a Christian should take every opportunity to invite any and all sinners to become acquainted with the source of their redemption: including inviting them into fellowship in corporate worship. The issue is simply should anyone living in open sin: be granted formal church membership? My position is no.

TOM

Tom

I've actually watched several conversations on this emotionally-charged topic over this past year, and I continue to be encouraged that people will engage in this topic, even if occasionally passion gets the better part of kindness.

Bob, I agree that we have to allow all parties to follow Romans 14:5 and each be fully convinced in our own hearts/minds. There was a very good example of how disagreement can happen respectfully and with love at the recent PUC Town Hall meeting on religion and sexuality. Towards the end homosexuality came up, and Dr. Fulton and Dr. Ranzolin, professor of psychology and religion, respectively, had somewhat different convictions about what a careful search of the scriptures revealed, but their exchange was a model for how this can be done to move us all towards growth.
http://spectrummagazine.org/collegiate/2007/12/02/panel_puc_tackles_ques...

I'm very much looking forward to this book!

Elaine:

I’m wondering if you were able to read/participate in this past weeks SS lesson. It was titled “Dying like a Seed” but I taught it more along the lines of the idea of dying to self. Seems it is a very common metaphor/figure of speech used by Paul. Are you telling me this notion has no resonance with your theology? How could it if I’m deeply in love (opposite of hate maybe?) with myself? You take me THIS way God, or not at all? Is that really how it works for your theology??

Here’s a clip from C S Lewis:
“The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says "Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked – the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours." (Mere Christianity IV.8.4)

What part of this quote do you disagree with Elaine? Just wondering...

And this, from Talbott’s book (p. 101) which I love and am rather sure you’ve read:

“Here Paul implies that salvation involves the crucifixion and complete destruction of something so intimately connected with us that we can refer to it with the same personal pronouns that we use to refer to ourselves; we can also think of it as the death of a person. When the old self or false self is crucified -- that is, when we are crucified in our innermost being -- then in a very real sense we die; and in dying, we are thereby made alive. Paul can thus write: ‘I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.’ Gal 2: 19-20”

Am I to assume that you have found some path to growth and God and salvation that bypasses this whole concept of crucifixion of self and recreation IN Christ?? Is the homosexual Christian exempt from this process?

Lastly, are you of the opinion that only those who embrace your understanding are able to practice “love” correctly? It sure sounds like that’s what you mean. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Daneen, and David Larsen:

Here’s a suggestion for a more effective blog thread on, not homosexuality per se, but on the consequences of our individual convictions for a meaningful church community. Why not simply start by assuming that represented in the audience are those whose convictions on the subject are polar opposites. Lets also just accept that none who participate in the discussion would march with a “God-hates-fags” rally. And assume that everyone here with an opinion holds it a) with integrity and b) respecting scripture as he sees/reads it. Would that be possible? ie We’re different; what now?

If I am able to sit next to, and worship with, one whose views on the Atonement (for example) are vastly different than mine, why not on this issue? In fact, I am already.

Bob:

Your analysis and appraisal of the form and substance of this discussion is a splendid Christmas gift to us all. Thank you!

I feel most challenged by your suggestion that we give option 1, that of a homosexual person marrying a heterosexual person on the basis of full disclosure by both parties, more favorable consideration.

Except for one case, the outcome of which is uncertain because the marriage has just begun, each time Option 1 has been proposed in my hearing the explicit premise has been that in and of itself marrying a heterosexual person would change the orientation of the homosexual one. I doubt this, and so do most of the other authors in our book.

Even if I were more convinced than I now am that such change is possible in most cases, another topic entirely, I would hold that marrying a homosexual person is not enough to accomplish it. Other interventions would also be necessary.

In principle I have no objection to people marrying on the basis of free, informed and mentally competent consent. Not everyone who thinks he or she is qualified to give this kind of consent actually is, however.

Sexual intimacy between a teacher and student or between a health professional and current patient would be examples of cases in which true consent is not possible no matter what the parties say; however, this is not the kind of situation you have in mind.

So, yes, the kind of consent we both would require is at least theoretically possible in the cases we are discussing. Nevertheless, I still suggest that heterosexual and homosexual persons who are contemplating marriage should proceed with great caution.

Would I officiate at such a marriage, if asked? Perhaps so, if the full disclosure occurred at the very beginning of the relationship before either party had made too much of an emotional investment EASILY to back out. By "very beginning" I mean BEFORE the first date or its equivalent.

But if either party disclosed that he or she had a different orientation after the first date or its equivalent, I doubt I would perform the wedding because I would doubt the honesty of the person who postponed full disclosure and therefore the validity of the other person's consent.

I might turn out to have been mistaken on both counts; however, I think it would be professionally irresponsible of me to take the risk.

I any case, you have prompted me to consider cases that till now I have not given much attention. Thank you and happy new year!

Dave

Bob
I think your proposal as to how we should discuss things is excellent and for the most part I think that this is how this discussion, and others on this blog, have proceeded.

A very few of us, excluding you because you consistently interact as a Chrisitan gentleman, hurl overly strong language at others and then act wounded when our objectivity is questioned. Usually we've given as much or more than we got, however. This is why defensiveness and self-pity does not commend us. Thanks!
Dave

Thanks for reading my intent Dave: Olive branch and not cudgel.

I hope you realized my reason for responding to the “option #1” as I did. Recall Elaine’s comment of Dec 24 which is very commonly articulated by those of her position:

“To reduce marriage to mere copulation, which is what is nearly always addressed in homosexuality, is to return to the idea in Genesis: "be fruitful and multiply" which is the Catholic position: all sexual relations must be open to procreation. What about the millions of marriages that cannot, and will never procreate for age or other reasons? Is it impossible to understand that same sex partnerships may also have much more than physical intimacies just as heterosexual marriages?”

OK. If that is to be allowed, it follows that we must allow that very same intimacy for the couple in the site “Anonymous” shared with us. Wouldn’t that be fair?

So intent are many to “accept” the “gay-is-OK” mantra and worldview, that any who fall short of this are treated with a disparaging rudeness. Examples include the assertion (you’ve heard it before I’m sure) that any homosexual who has felt called to let God “change” their sexuality and have (apparently) been successful is “not really” a homosexual in the first place. Isn’t that demeaning? Or, I have heard, many times, it said to the homosexual who has sincerely come to the conviction that God has called them to celibacy, that their motivation is merely a Victoria era guilt. Such patronizing attitudes appall me. I hope they do you too.

That is, if the goal is to be respectful of the journey (including discovery of how one’s sexuality relates to the whole person and whole life) of a person, and we are to act respectfully of where they are, I find the above two examples to be egregiously DISrespectful. Do we, or do we not believe that God is capable of reaching anyone anywhere and does so through their own conscience?

Since I’m airing my pet peeves about unhelpful and double-standard bias I perceive in certain of those I tend to disagree with, and you are politely listening, I have one more to share. And that is the conflation of love of the gay person with acceptance of the entire “gay-is-OK” spectrum of ideas. If one believes homosexual sex is wrong, does that mean, by definition, that he is incapable of loving and accepting the homosexual? If so, we might as well end the whole conversation right now. If love equals believing that gay sex is all fine with God, how could a conversation even proceed?

Thanks for listening. (On call today, I’ve yet to be called in! And it’s getting late afternoon here! Hence a bit of extra time to sneak a peek at the blog…)

Nothing like typing several paragraphs only to find that "I'm not a registered user"!

"If the Bible cannot be read plainly and sensibly, then it should not be read at all.
I suppose that was the enemy's plan all along, since his mortal enemy is The Word.

If God can make no demands of us in plain English (or any other language for that matter), if He must be subject to our textual criticism, then He is no longer anywhere near Sovereign anymore."

And who of us claim to read the Bible plainly and sensibly except for ourselves? If we all did as suggested, there would never be such a discussion. We could all say "amen" and drop it.

There are many contradictory passages in the Bible, so what do we do with those if they are "plain and sensible"?

With each sin or law broken, there always followed a specific punishment. Do we today ignore those because they are no longer applicable? Shouldn't we leave it to God, who knows the heart, to both judge and decide judgment?

Is there anyone here who applies all the rules and laws, given by God in the Bible as applicable today? Or, is it only some? Many values we cherish today were never mentioned in the Bible: democracy (completely unknown then) equality of race and sexes, abolition of slavery which was strongly enforced by most Christians until the last few centuries). Have we not progressed from those times? Do we not have more medical and scientific knowledge, or do we look to the Bible for ALL our answers involving humans? It seems that we are conflicted and selectively use scripture for our own ends.

If one chooses to use the Bible as a rule and guidebook, pray tell how you choose which are appropriate today and which are no longer applicable? I challenge anyone here to declare that they OBEY each and every rule and law given by God in a plain and sensible manner with no contemporary perspective lens.

Bob, to answer your question about the SS lesson.
We choose a Bible book rather than the one prepared by the GC. Currently, we are studying the book of Romans.

Regarding love of self. Wasn't it Jesus who said we should love our neighbor as ourself? How can we not put ourselves at least as equal? If we place ourselves less than others, that would be what many new Christians in the first centuries did. They even flagellated themselves or wore sackcloth and retired to the desert (as a way to avoid sin?).

If I value myself as a person I must treat others as I wish to be treated; neither better nor worse. Masochism could be the result.

If we believe that we were created in the image of God and that he values us as very important to him, his child, it must be reconciled with Paul's idea of "dying to self." This is another of the many apparent contradictory statements made by different writers.

Last week in discussing faith, James' remarks about faith without works is another APPARENT contradiction of Paul's. How do you reconcile "dying to self" with God wanting us to be all that we can and reach our highest potential. To do that, we must have high self-worth, musn't we?

Hmm, nothing like this topic to draw forth strong opinions. Seems like we just go round and round, repeating our beliefs and hoping we will influence someone else. Doesn't seem like there's much more that can be said, but I'll make a few comments.

Dear Anonymous Mother: God bless you for your wise and understanding attitude toward your son. I, too, am a mother. I have seen not only my son's agony in trying to understand why he is "different" but also have heard the same agony of hundreds of other gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual people expressed. I wonder why those who don't have to deal with this pain get so worked up over this topic.

Bob, it's nice to see you here again! I like your idea of our admitting that those of differing opinions do hold them with integrity and that we should be able to discuss this or any other subject on which we disagree (such as universal salvation?) with respect and courtesy.

Regarding our need to completely surrender our lives to God, or die to self, I believe that most gay Christians would agree that this is something they are trying to do. But are you saying that for them, dying to self means either that they must die to their sexuality or that in dying to self, God will resurrect them to heterosexuality?

Anonymous@11, you put out the challenge that heterosexual marriage should be considered as an option, if it is undertaken with full disclosure. I have a few comments:

First, no one, either gay or straight, fully realizes before marriage what they will be facing, even if the gay partner has disclosed his orientation.

Second, some mixed/orientation couples believe so strongly in doing what they believe is right that they will persist in their marriage for many years even after they realize it was a mistake.

Third, I know personally a large number of couples in which disclosure took place before or at the beginning of the marriage, who tried with all their might to make it work, and eventually found that it didn't.

Any gay or lesbian person who sincerely loves their straight partner, and vice versa, knows without a doubt that they cannot be to their partner everything one hopes for in a marriage. I'm not just talking about fulfilling sex, whatever that may be, although I believe God intended sex to be fulfilling. There is also an integral part of the bonding process that is missing.

That's why I always say, would you want your daughter to marry a gay man? or your son to marry a lesbian? When it comes down to something that personal, I don't think most people would say Yes.

Elaine, I think the whole crux of this issue comes down to what people understand the Bible to say. "Simple English" can be read and understood differently by different people. Personally, I do not find in the Bible anything that refers to homosexual orientation and how such people should live their lives. I really wish that those who believe the Bible condemns loving, same-sex relationships would read this new book with an open mind to see if there might be another, more redemptive way we could read these few much-disputed verses.

(I took a little vacation to nudge our local academy into higher realms of academic excellence- educators do not like to see themselves as learners after years of teaching. It's a delicate "dance" of massaging and encouraging egos to escape the inertia of "good enough". Hello to my old friends, Tom, Elaine and Bob!)

Loving ourselves is my naturally preferred way (natural orientation being optimistic)of understanding God's calling to completely align, understand and embrace His will and Love. Because it allows His Love to crowd out the sinful, inadequate ways of dealing with reality.

Of course, the natural pessimist would rather use words of crucifying self, full submission and denial and sacrifice for the same experience of conversion.

But the results are the same- to fully embrace and be embraced by God and allow Him to transform us to be what we were meant to be.

Now, where is the validity to the notion that natural "orientation" is inherently just/holy/right/neutral?

Whatever rationale we use to support a particular sexual orientation as morally unculpable if carried out should have a broad enough application to support all other natural sexual orientations (legal or not, by human laws) as well as orientations/inclinations of inborn/natural personality and character. Are all things in human nature good? What is our criteria? And what begs conversion?

Powerful thread. What does someone like myself do who--not willing to dismiss what the Bible clearly teaches--and yet at the same time feels great empathy for those want to serve God and yet struggle with this?

I don't think most gays choose their sexual orientation (why would they?) any more than most straights do. I do believe, however, that gay orientation is simply one result of what sin has done to the human race. We all suffer from the results of sin, one way or another.

Someone mocked the idea of "loving the sinner but hating the sin." So, if someone truly believes that the Bible teaches this practice is wrong, is sinful, cannot that person--without judging the heart, the motives, or anything else about someone else--speak against the practice out of loving concern, out of sincere care for the eternal life of that person, without being deemed a homophobe or a gay-bashing right wing bigot?

Cannot those who take the Bible texts for what they seem to say, defend those positions, which are certainly reasonable reads of the texts, without being bashed as theological Neanderthals?

Sure, once you dismiss the clear reading of the texts, then you can justify and rationalize any practice you want. Hey, folks used the Bible to justify killing Jews, right?

Maybe we should start with the plain reading of the texts, and then seek to work from there on how do we love and minister to those who, through no choice of their own, find themselves struggling with an orientation that leads to a practice that the Bible speaks out against as wrong? Does that seem unreasonable?

I haven't read the new book but doubt very much it takes anything close to that position. I could imagine there are pages and pages of theological gymnastics concluding with something that, I guess, gives a completely different spin on what most folks would say is a reasaonable reading of the texts, right? I can't imagine there is even one perspective in there saying that the practice is sinful, and wrong. If there were, I would be VERY surprised.

Cliff

Hi Cliff!

The perspective you do not expect to find in our book was authored by Roy Gane. He specializes in the Old Tesament at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan. His PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literature, or something like that, is from the University of California at Berkeley. He is an honest Christian scholar who speaks the truth as he sees it. This is precisely what we asked him to do and we are grateful that he accepted our invitation.

Happy New Year!

Dave

and so, the shoe is on the other foot.

1. Christian Love-
Will those who believe the bible does not condemn homosexual actions and who decry the heartlessness, rejection, hatred of homosexuals-
love, respect(not demean) and empathize with others who live in the tension of loving people but differ from the above on the accepting the actions based on their understanding of the Bible? (For this correctly characterizes the spectrum bloggers who differ on this thread. Save the outrage for those who deserve it.)
If not, the claims to inclusion and love are hypocritical.

2. Christian Truth-
What is "clear, simple, obvious"- in the Bible to one, is not- to another (or many others, in this case). So such vocabulary doesn't convince or convict. And majority interpretation can change over time, as we see in other social taboos.

Agents for change should continue to use systematic theology that casts new insights into old texts; agents for authenticity should insist on rational (not emotional, anecdotal, politically correct)transitions into any "new" re-interpretations.

so... can the foot walk the talk?

Wow--I shut off the laptop for a day and boy has this thread grown! Again, I am very interested in the book, especially since Dave has alerted us that it will truly be an inclusive book--not just one with the perspective we already want to believe.

Bob--It's always great to see you on a thread, and I always benefit from your comments. I actually do approach a blog thread with the perspective you suggest (but I'm not the one who started this one). I think all positions on the spectrum of a topic benefit from hearing honest, respectful thoughts. And yes, I do think you can love a homosexual person without believing that homosexual activity is scripturally sanctioned. I used to be in that position myself before I began studying the scriptures--I had just assumed the Bible position was clear that that had to be my stance.

As for the full disclosure homosexual/heterosexual marriage. For some reason that link won't open for me, but from what the rest of you have said, I think I'm gathering the gist. I'm sure there are some couples for whom this might work, but I'm very hesitant, mainly because I have several friends who worship with me in San Francisco who tried this and finally could no longer deny their core selves. Marriage is such a gift--to love another and be loved by another intimately with all your frailties known--I guess I believe both partners deserve another who finds them to be their ideal, their completed self. Maybe it's not considered okay to admit it, but sex is important to me, and I don't think I would want to know that my husband had to work hard to overcome his innate desires to be with me.

Cliff--I know I've had trouble with the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra, mainly because in practice the focus if very much on the first clause. We tend to enjoy the judging part much more than the loving part, mainly because the focus is off of ourselves.

It all boils down to whether or not you want to hate yourself or like yourself for what you find yourself to be.

Years ago before negritude became the norm, some unfortunate souls in and out of our church wished they had been born white instead of enjoying their God-given African skin and features. Now that scenario seems as unacceptable as it should have been then.

In like manner, there are some gays in and outside the church that wish they had been born straight and hate themselves to their great detriment.

Only if you have love for yourself can you expect others to love you. Otherwise, others will take your lead and hate you as you hate yourself for not being like the great majority of people who happen to be heterosexual.

Perhaps that's why gay meccas spring up across the U.S., in New York City, San Francisco, Ft. Lauderdale. In the gay ghettos that develop in these cities, gays can learn to love themselves and not hate themselves for being different from the majority of people.

Since you all are being so gracious about discussing this topic, allow me to continue ruminating and sharing?? ---> again, in Christian love… if you feel singled out, call me on it...
(note: written after Cliff's post... I see others have accumulated since I wrote...)

1) Many on the “gay-is-OK” side remark that the topic is so “emotionally charged”. Is there a hidden bias lurking in that observation? For myself, I get even more “emotional” when discussing the Atonement, or Universalism, and so on. Emotionally charged is good -- is it not? It means interest -- and engagement -- and concern… That’s a good thing -- right? Sadly, I’ve heard it asserted -- against a person who sees homosexual practice as sin -- that they must be emotionally charged because secretly they struggle with their OWN sexual identity… I find that both ludicrous, and rude.
Further, isn’t it possible that dissenters from a reading of scripture that holds homosexual practice as OK actually engage because of their love and compassion for our homosexual friends and kin?

2) Carrol is correct when she observes that no one comes to a discussion like this with unformed opinions. Which is why I appealed for a conversation that presumed from the start the wide opinions we see here. However, the expression read/study “with an open mind” is all-too-often simply code for, “and if open, you will reach the conclusions that I have.” By the way: does the fact that one already HAS formed an opinion mean that their mind is therefore now CLOSED? Lets be honest; have you EVER seen someone on this site change their mind about anything? If changing your mind is so wonderful, what would you think of a person who changed it regularly? I thought so…

3) Carrol commented:” I wonder why those who don't have to deal with this pain get so worked up over this topic.”
A little presumptuous -- isn’t it? -- to assume that just because a commenter/writer has not told YOU of their personal life situation they therefore “don’t have to deal with this pain”???
This speaks directly to the fallacy mentioned by Anonymous whereby only those who see themselves as “victim” are allowed to make pertinent comments…

4) It yet amazes me that those who demand respect for their readings of scripture which do not see homosexuality even dealt with in the bible, refuse to give the same respect to those who find such references obvious. This of course gets to the heart of any issue which divides us…

5) Elaine: your construction of a strawman “self-hater” reminds me of a similar tactic used by global warming alarmists who hold, that if one disagrees with them, then that person MUST be wasteful, pro polluted air and dirty water. All it does though is avoid the question… Of course we are to “love” ourselves in a real way. But if by implication this means that such love must ALSO endorse and approve of every impulse and action and thought to be valid, then one has missed the entire construct of becoming changed into the likeness of Christ. And Paul’s struggle in Romans 7 would be rendered incoherent.

6) It never fails that someone reminds us we are not to judge. True enough. But that is quite apart from our obligation TO engage discernment and choice. This is not a call not to have opinions, but rather a call to the inherent wrongness of presuming oneself “better” because his “sins” are somehow less offensive. All stand in need of a savior.

7) I agree with Cliff G’s post in that if his position is not represented in the book, that is a MAJOR deficiency. For me the most helpful description of the position I think Cliff is referring to is by Richard B Hays in his “The Moral Vision of the New Testament” (I have several pages of quotes from his chapter on homosexuality if you’d like… bobrigsby@aol.com)
But basically the entire structure of Romans 1 (per Hays) revolves around Paul’s description of the extent to which man has fallen from God’s original creative intent and purpose. The entire list of behaviors mentioned in those closing verses are thus symptoms of our fallenness. They are indications of just how far we have fallen from God’s created order. But Hays also emphasizes that no human is exempt from this condition. He says “ Consequently, for Paul, self-righteous judgement of homosexuality is just as sinful as the homosexual behavior itself.”
For Hays, it would be unthinkable that one would accept any of the items listed in Romans as somehow “OK” -- because that is “how God made us”.

8) All this leads to the paradigm in which I currently seek (OK, struggle) to live.
Given that:
a) we are all fallen and that
b) God seeks and speaks to each of us and that
c) He necessarily speaks to us in ways which make sense to us -- but may make less sense to the person besides us (and likewise, God speaks to that person in ways that we find puzzling too) and that
d) the experience of conviction and repentance and “turning” back to God are necessarily and deeply personal…

it follows that:

a) God is working with each and every human (it’s His nature) to bring them to ever deeper conviction on some issue in their lives (some call this process “sanctification”) and that
b) this process of being convicted does not occur within specified time constraints and that
c) therefore just as we patiently wait for further conviction within our own minds and souls as God ever seeks to draw us back to His created purpose, that
d) we are to patiently allow for the grace of God to convict those souls all about us and finally that
e) while we await patiently for conviction, (our own and others) it is ALWAYS proper and right to live the love of Jesus Christ toward our fellow travelers…

I find this paradigm helpful for many reasons. Most importantly, it allows me to read and accept the scripture as it speaks to me. It allows me a way to love and embrace the homosexual -- even if they live a lifestyle with which I disagree. This is because I respect the fact that they too are waiting for conviction. That the rate and nature of their “slow to arrive convictions” is none of my d___ business (how’s that for emotionally charged Daneen?!) I think is shown amply by the story of John 21:22. I am allowed -- even obligated -- to have convictions yes; but ONLY for myself. To do otherwise is gross vanity and usurps the role of the Holy Spirit. I am not to hold convictions that must be normative for YOU. And vice versa…

Now, I do recognize that this paradigm possess a potentially “self-negating” quality. That is, one could reply “Bob, I am waiting to be convicted on the usefulness of your paradigm.” But … if one thinks so little of the paradigm, why would he even condescend to use it thus? Hey; for me, it represents a next step forward.

Is this ethic translatable to a church which has to decide to embrace into full fellowship the openly gay couple???
I honestly don’t know… for 1 Cor 5:5 is also scripture...

Thanks for listening.

"Three answers are floating about among we SDAs at the moment: (1) heterosexual marriage, (2) celibacy and (3) a permanent, sexually exclusive and genuinely loving homosexual relationship that benefits the community as well as those within it."

My question: What would be the best advise for those who may be "bisexuals"?

Please understand I ask in all sincerity. My aim is to clarify and advance our knowledge of the subject in light of our current understanding of biblical teaching and inclusive of different cultural traditions. Options #1 and #3, in my part of the world for example, may involve in either case at least one self-identified bisexual.

Here's why:

'... [T]he word "transgendered" propped up not only to accommodate transsexuals but the many other gender categories which were being "discovered" in non-western societies and which didn’t quite fit into the western definitions of "lesbian", "gay" and "bisexual"...

"Gay" or "homosexual" in a western setting refers to someone attracted to the same sex. In western societies, the "rule" is that gay men go to bed with gay men, lesbians with lesbians. In the Philippines, a bakla, at least traditional ones, will not go to bed with another bakla....

'The bakla is attracted to men, which makes him homosexual, well, sort of, but not in the western sense. The catch here is that it’s not just any male but real men, ke tunay na lalake as in heterosexual men.'

- 28 June 2001
Transgenders by M. L. Tan

http://pinoykasi.homestead.com/files/2001articles/06282001_Transgenders....

Michael L. Tan is chair of a university anthropology department who writes a biweekly column for a national daily.
He is a contributor to "Gay and Lesbian Asia: Culture, Identity, Community" by Gerard Sullivan, Peter A. Jackson, eds., Haworth Press, 2001.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mfQqAQ1OQDkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mic...

As Christians, this whole topic has been approached from the biblical perspective.

How many of you here know and are secure in your understanding of exactly how the Bible first came to be preserved through writing? For the first several millennia, and more, everything in the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was ORALLY transmitted. Do you honestly believe that all the men were so inspired that there was never a change during that entire period?

We do not even know when the oral transmission began, although we are more secure about the time of its preservation through writing. Prior to this time, nearly everyone was pre-literate: there was no need to read nor write and it was only a few (priests, usually) who were the keepers of the few written parts, never the whole.

I highly recommend the historian Karen Armstrong's new book "The Bible" for the history of the formation of the Bible. She was asked to write on this most important book in the world, as one of a set of books still in progress: "Books that Changed the World," a very apt title.

We know much more about the NT canon but how many here are familiar with the making of the Hebrew Bible, and when and how it first was transmitted from oral to written words? Shouldn't we know more of the story of the origin of a book we literally stake our lives on?
How can we accept it as the Word of God and know little or nothing about how it came to us?

Many human conditions and abnormalities of birth, were believed in ancient times to be cause by sin. That position is alive and well today. Are such conditions as Tay-Sachs, Huntington's Chorea, spina bifida caused by sin?
IF someone is born homosexual (the scientific studies seem to agree with that more all the time), it could because of sin, but is it a sin of the individual? How is that different from the other genetic conditions mentioned? Is an individual with spina bifida a sinner? Why not? Why not admit we do not know for certainty that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Should we not err on the side of magnanimity then?

Many here I find agreement with in the position that they have not been chosen to either approve or disapprove of homosexuality in an individual. If that is so, shouldn't we love and accept all sinners, including ourselves, as God loves us?

Arlyn says: Whatever rationale we use to support a particular sexual orientation as morally unculpable if carried out should have a broad enough application to support all other natural sexual orientations (legal or not, by human laws) as well as orientations/inclinations of inborn/natural personality and character. Are all things in human nature good? What is our criteria? And what begs conversion?

I believe a lot of our differences on this thread are due to semantics. Take the word "orientation": All the recent science (over the past 3 or 4 decades) points to prenatal hormonal fluctuations, from many different causes including genetic, that prevent the usual opposite sex hardwiring in the brain, as the basis for same-sex orientation. Other such different prenatal hardwiring accounts for those who feel themselves to be a different sex than their body indicates. These are biological orientations that cannot be changed after birth.

Pedophilia is not a hard-wired sexual orientation. In almost all cases, it occurs in people who were themselves abused as children, causing their sexual development to be arrested. Or in other cases it occurs because the individual seeking sex cannot relate socially to peers, but is in a position of power over children. As for the so-called "orientation" to have sex with animals or dead people, that is obviously a perversion. To say that these are all orientations is like comparing apples and oranges.

The other difference, which I think is very important, is that all other sexual departures from committed love in male/femaile marriage - adultery, promiscuity, incest, rape, child abuse, pornography - hurt others, as well as the one who indulges in them. Committed love between gay or lesbian couples, while not the Edenic ideal, can be just as beautiful, fulfilling and self-sacrificing as opposite sex marriage. I say this because I know many such couples and have known them for many years, including one gay couple
that is approaching their "golden anniversary."

And the same thing goes for comparison to a genetic tendency toward alcoholism, which is so frequently used. Alcoholism harms the person, family and society.

I see a couple of issues here. What behavior is sinful enough to require a community to take an official position? There are plenty of examples that fit this category - things that cause pain and hurt to others and are destructive to the community. Lying, stealing, murder, incest, all of these "make sense" as sins. The Bible speaks out against them and many non-Christians also hold them as moral values. There are things the Bible considers sins that we totally ignore like having sex with a woman around her menstrual cycle or mixing fabrics. These make no sense to us in a practical way and we do not take stands against them and do not call them sins. Of course this is not a process to be taken lightly but honestly, it does seem to have to "make sense" to us as a harmful thing for us to follow it now.

Then there are the kind of murky things like say gluttony which the Bible clearly speaks out against. We can see the "common sense" of it as well in terms of health and greed. One could easily argue that obesity cause much more harm to a community in terms of public health then homosexual behavior but as a community, Christians do not "lovingly"confront a fat person, they do not "take a stand" and refuse church membership to a fat person or fire fat pastors, and they do not picket clothing stores that "cater to a fat lifestyle" by making large sizes. It makes us squirm to even think about it (one would hope) because it seems, well, mean. We can recognize the struggle to maintain a healthy weight and we can leave it up to the person and God. Why can't we do this with homosexuals?

So the question becomes, what "Bible sin" behaviors are clearly harmful enough to us and to society that we should take a clear stand and not tolerate them i.e. incest, which ones are harmful but we would consider them personal sins and not make efforts to confront individuals, and which ones do we chalk up to ancient society foibles and ignore? My personal belief is that homosexual behavior (just like heterosexual) can fall into any of these categories. Predatory and/or promiscuous behavior of any type falls into the first. Sex between two loving consenting monogamous adults would fall in the second and sex between two loving consenting committed-for-life adults would fall in the third. This really seems to be the way the church has fallen out on heterosexual behavior and it works pretty well. I understand that for many, homosexual behavior will always be a sin (I'm not one) but does it always have to be such an awful one that SDAs have to take strong public stands and confront and deny church membership and leadership and all of that?

Is anyone else having a problem getting to the second page of this thread?

Anonymous@11 said: You know, after reading texts like 1 Corinthians 6:9, would you really hand this book over to God (along with, say, a few Spong essays and the latest thinking from our centers of learning and say "Here God, have a read."?

We have never really gotten into a discussion of these "clobber texts" on any of these threads. While I don't claim to be a great theological scholar, I have read a large number of books dealing with these particular verses and here is what I have learned:

The Greek word which has been translated variously as “male prostitutes,” “homosexuals,” or “effeminate” is malakos. Its basic meaning is “soft ones” and it has also been translated to mean “lazy,” “wanton,” or “undisciplined,” so its meaning is not specifically linked with sexual matters. However, many biblical scholars suggest that in this instance it probably refers to young men who were prostitutes, wore soft, silken clothing, painted their faces and perfumed their bodies in order to solicit sex with both male and female clients.5

Another Greek word used in these two verses, arsenokoites, is a combination of the words for male and bed. This is the first known time it has appeared in literature. It may be that Paul invented the word. The second part of the word is commonly used for “lying with” and refers to the “active” or penetrating partner. It is not clear whether “male” is meant to indicate “a man who is the active partner in intercourse with anyone, male or female,” or whether it means a passive male who is penetrated by another male. Helminiak says “Language is not always logical,” and gives the illustration of the expression lady killer, which “means neither a lady who kills nor a person who kills ladies but a man who knows how to charm women.”

In subsequent literature, this word almost always appears in vice lists similar to Paul’s, and is found adjacent to words having to do with economic exploitation, (for example, “thieves” in 1 Cor. and “slave traders” in 1 Tim.). Many biblical scholars believe that it likely refers to some form of prostitution. Malakos and arsenokoites are thought to be pair words, so arsenokoites probably means the man who makes use of the prostitute’s services.

Some have concluded that because Paul says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified…,” this means that they had been homosexuals, but had become heterosexual, proving that orientation can be changed. But of course, Paul had no knowledge of orientation. Obviously, people who had been involved in prostitution, could change their behavior. But they may not even have been homosexual in orientation. In Paul’s world, a free, male Roman citizen had the privilege of finding sexual gratification with anyone, male or female, who was considered his inferior – women, and male or female slaves.

I am looking forward to seeing how the new book treats these verses, both pro and con.

As for handing this book to God and asking Him to read it, I think He would smile approvingly at this effort to understand His Word better.

Carrol,

It's not mere semantic distinctions that divide us. Truth of the matter is precious little is known with absolutely certainty about the root causes of human sexual orientations especially in regard to what may be considered deviations from the norm. So, is one's sexual orientation a sin? Of course not. However, is it not what we ought to do with our predispositions, inborn or developed later, that's the reason for this conversation?

I typed "homosexuality" in PubMed and below is just a short list of studies that presuppose prenatal/postnatal hormonal influence.

Annu Rev Sex Res. 2001;12:186-241
Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior.
Okami P, Shackelford TK.
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles 90095, USA.

Arch Sex Behav. 2004 Oct;33(5):497-514.
The cognitive, behavioral, and personality profiles of a male monozygotic triplet set discordant for sexual orientation.
Hershberger SL, Segal NL.
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach 90840, USA.

J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;18(3):235-40.
Normal male childhood and adolescent sexual interactions: implications for sexual orientation of the individual with intersex.
Lee PA, Houk CP.
Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Department of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, Milton S Hershey School Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033-0850, USA.

J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Jul;18(7):625-30.
Impact of environment upon gender identity and sexual orientation: a lesson for parents of children with intersex or gender confusion.
Lee PA, Houk CP.
Department of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, The Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA.

J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Sep;37(5):555-67. Links
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sexual orientation.
James WH.
The Galton Laboratory, University College London.

Joselito, it's true that no one knows with complete certainty the etiology of homosexuality. But we can undoubtedly see a trend in where research is leading. As more study is done, we may find there is a diversity of causes. And yes, someday it may be possible to determine before birth if a fetus is homosexual. In that case, no doubt, the very people who so strongly oppose abortion, would believe that abortion is the "right" thing to do in this case.

All the arguments for the cause of pedophilia were once used against homosexuality too. I wouldn't be too adamant that other sexual orientations won't ever come down the same path to tolerance in some form (especially if monogamous and mutually committed)due to further genetic research and societal acceptance. And the label of perversion will shrink to just what is "unacceptable at the time". Harm? that is also defined as relative to the participants and the society about them. Morality at this level is no different from secular humanism.

Back to God as the foundation..

So, what did God create? Was homosexuality part of His original diversity of sexual expression from Eden? Does it also reveal an aspect of the Trinity that is precious and accurate? Is Jesus' celibacy on earth linked with either or both orientations? Is "fulfillment of inherited orientation" a new compass of God's will for that individual?

"In that case, no doubt, the very people who so strongly oppose abortion, would believe that abortion is the "right" thing to do in this case." come now, this is the kind of rhetoric that does injustice to our bloggers and this conversation.

Dave--

My apologies; I didn't know you had Roy Gane in there.

Thanks

Cliff

Question:

Does Dr. Roy Gane conclude that sex between members of the same sex is no longer a sin? Or was it ever a sin? Of course we all have a LONG way to go in truly loving our neighbors and enemies and everbody in between those extremes, but does the book also conclude that the homosexual act is now cool and has God's blessing?

And, as to another point being made: of course I have no difficulty in loving the sinner and hating the sin every day. I hate it when my son, who I love, gets speeding tickets. I can't stand it when my wife, who I love, - - - - (it would be rude for me to fill in the blank). I love myself, but never when I lie, cheat, am rude or ruthless, behalf selfishly, and sadly the list will go on until Christ makes me anew.

My God Carrol: Your comment

“And yes, someday it may be possible to determine before birth if a fetus is homosexual. In that case, no doubt, the very people who so strongly oppose abortion, would believe that abortion is the "right" thing to do in this case.”

is one which is entirely gratuitous and insulting. I had thought you were above such. You are better than that Carrol; do you realize such rhetoric hurts your supposed objectivity and inclusiveness? Well, it does. In fact, it precisely illustrates the double standard exhibited by those who claim the high ground of love and inclusiveness. Just who the hell are you referring to here Carrol? Anyone participating on this blog? Does your sensitive acceptance of struggling humans extend all the way outside of your OWN circle?
Do your insights and compassion only “work” for those within YOUR framework?

Consider me your friend -- pointing you to a flaw in your expression of your compassion and passions. Carrol; you’ve camped too long where you are. Camp for a spell with those who differ from you. You will find equal compassion there -- let me assure you. Carrol: I love you too much to let this simply slide and pass. You are better than this. Have you enough compassion to share with that soul who may one day face the dilemma you so easily sneer at and trash?

God! I thought we were trying to move BEYOND the binaries of conservative and liberal?

This hurts…

Carrol said:

Joselito, it's true that no one knows with complete certainty the etiology of homosexuality. But we can undoubtedly see a trend in where research is leading. As more study is done, we may find there is a diversity of causes. And yes, someday it may be possible to determine before birth if a fetus is homosexual. In that case, no doubt, the very people who so strongly oppose abortion, would believe that abortion is the "right" thing to do in this case.
Posted by: Carrol Grady (not verified) | 26 December 2007 at 8:39

I have often heard this said. It is false. I believe this to be one of those "narratives of comfort" that play off the stereotypes of "the other" to assure of a future heinous outcome to some prediction.

It is more likely that in such an event, those people who see any restriction whatsoever on abortion as the ultimate "human rights violation" will then jump in and try to restrict abortions for reason of sexual orientation.

We know this, because they are already doing it in the case of sex-selection abortions (illegal in many countries).
(I have not even mentioned the many otherwise pro-abortion gay people I have heard answer this question strongly to that effect.)

Strong abortion opponents would not condone such abortions, because they already tend not to find any reason good enough for abortions--not potential sickness/malformation/impaired-ness (of the child), not potential death of the mother. Many even struggle with the "rape/incest clause".

Back to "Option 1".

Carrol (and I believe another poster, Mr. Larson), both seemed to say that because in their experience they have not run into any people enthusiastic about heterosexual unions as an option, then that means that success is too rare to include in the book.
Could it be that the people you come into contact with are self-selected?
If you spend much of your time working among people who share your views on the matter, would that not show up in your personal samples? Especially when working closely with Kinship--an organization that is most certainly against such an option?
That might be the reason why the opinion never saw the light of day in the book.

But about this marriage thing.
People keep saying things like "they hoped to change but found that they didn't".
Here, even Exodus outruns you. That opinion is dated.

For these people, heterosexual marriage is an end--not a means to an end.
They often are candid that this is not an option for everyone; and while one may hold this to be an eventual goal, they are counseled not to make marriage the focus of their "reorientation" (Notice I did not say "orientation change").

From what I gather, some people who take this path successfully (the fewest) do experience some sort of general orientation change. Most who take this approach though, find themselves at least able to function with their wives (and face varying degrees of work to manage their same-sex attractions).
The goal is not to marry in order to change, but to first (and then only) work to change their lifestyles and/or thoughts so as to honor God, and only then for those with a desire to have a family (or whatever other reason), to find a way to work around their sexual attractions through a system of honest disclosure, accountability (not only to the spouse by the way) and a host of other tools (to change thought patterns and other habits etc.).

(At this point, I am really disappointed that I have to explain this to people who have given their lives over to this cause. How is it that you can be involved in this field of work and not know this? Few of the posts against this show any detailed understanding as to how the practice works--but exhibit much vehement opposition.)

With marriages generally failing at an already dismal rate, it is unfair to blame all marriage failures here on the "orientation problem".
And again, anyone who marries and hopes for the marriage to change something (anything) would be in for a nasty awakening.
In fact, that is true for all marriages.

To say, as Elaine suggested, that many of them "thought they could do it together but failed" is to speak about many conventional heterosexual marriages.
Why then hold these (mixed orientation) marriages to a higher standard? Indeed they should in all fairness be held to a lower standard or expectations by nature.
They are simply more difficult by definition.
The point is, however, that it is doable, and probably more common that you think. It simply should have been addressed in the book, because it is an option.

So that would mean that there would be only two options--not three:

1. Conventional reading: Celibacy or a full-disclosure marriage.

2. New reading: Gay unions.

Rewording Carrol's comments:

If someday we were to determine absolutely, that homosexuality is a genetic trait, then what about those who now are calling them sinners? Do we also call those who have genetically acquired conditions sinners? Doesn't the logic follow that they would equally be sinners, or merely products of a sinful world over which they had no control? We have no control over our parentage, or genetic traits. Yet in Bible times they were "certain" that such anomalies were sin, and should often be punished. Have we not advanced one iota since then? Yet we still return to the Levitical laws to guide our lives today (except those we do not).

As someone who has read this entire thread, and yes (I am posting annonymously) I am both amused and saddened.

As a lifelong Seventh-day Adventist AND lesbian, and someone who was in a heterosexual marriage for nearly 20 years, I have struggled to have an unbiased perspective of both sides. I am quite willing to allow each of you to maintain your beliefs and I attempt to always respect the beliefs of everyone.

This perspective has been tough to maintain during the past 2-3 years as my partner and I have struggled to remain active and an integral part of our local congregation. The venom that has been directed at us has been VERY hard to swallow without retaliating. But I am firm in my belief that my place as a child of God is no less important than the place of those who behave with extreme bitterness. I have also come to KNOW that I will always be a Seventh-day Adventist...no matter what the church might do to exclude me!

Something that I learned in academy keeps coming back to me...."If you can't defend what you believe calmly and intelligently, then you don't have a belief, you have an opinion."

Because of my personal struggles, I am pleased to see this discussion taking place. This book may not have all the answers, but it does have the ability to make men and women think outside the box and to consider that things may not always be as they seem!

A special thanks to Dave and Carrol for all that you do!

I was able to see the second page of this thread once, but not now. I did notice, Bob, that you rightly called me out for assuming that those who disagreed with me didn't know the pain of being homosexual or having a gay son or daughter. I apologize. I shouldn't have said that.

I also wanted to say to Tom that I understand your feelings of revulsion at being propositioned by a gay person. I just hope you won't let that experience color your attitude toward all homosexuals.

As I recall, Bob, you also came down on someone - possibly me on another thread - who made the statement that some of those who are most stridently condemning of homsexuals are themselves struggling with such feelings. Please know that I certainly never intended to accuse anyone on this forum of that. But that is not just a mean thing to say. I personlly know of several fairly prominent people in the church who are in that category, and I could point to others, like Ted Haggard or the senator, whose name escapes me at the moment, who was in the sex-soliciting in the bathroom scandal, who also qualify for that category.

Rewording Carrol's comments:

If someday we were to determine absolutely, that homosexuality is a genetic trait, then what about those who now are calling them sinners? Do we also call those who have genetically acquired conditions sinners? Doesn't the logic follow that they would equally be sinners, or merely products of a sinful world over which they had no control? We have no control over our parentage, or genetic traits. Yet in Bible times they were "certain" that such anomalies were sin, and should often be punished. Have we not advanced one iota since then? Yet we still return to the Levitical laws to guide our lives today (except those we do not).
Posted by: Elaine | 27 December 2007 at 1:01

Elaine, isn't the ideas that we are all sinners? So to call homosexuals "sinners" would be exactly like calling them "Homo Sapiens".

We have no control over our past. We do have control over our future, however, based on the choices we make to avail (or not) ourselves of God's conquering power.

Please point to a Levitical or other Bible text showing an example where "Bible people" considered a physical anomaly to be a sin.

I was able to see the second page of this thread once, but not now. I did notice, Bob, that you rightly called me out for assuming that those who disagreed with me didn't know the pain of being homosexual or having a gay son or daughter. I apologize. I shouldn't have said that.

As I recall, Bob, you also came down on someone - possibly me on another thread - who made the statement that some of those who are most stridently condemning of homsexuals are themselves struggling with such feelings. Please know that I certainly never intended to accuse anyone on this forum of that. But that is not just a mean thing to say. I personlly know of several fairly prominent people in the church who are in that category, and I could point to others, like Ted Haggard or the senator, whose name escapes me at the moment, who was in the sex-soliciting in the bathroom scandal, who also qualify for that category.
Posted by: Carrol Grady (not verified) | 27 December 2007 at 1:36

Ms. Grady,
This is self-selecting. Any portion of any population is likely to be homosexually inclined--including people who oppose gay marriage.
It is funny how these total individuals with diverse interests have been reduced to single-interest caricatures for opponents to bash.
I am sure the Senator had many diverse legislative and political interests most of which would have nothing to do with gay issues.

Secondly, why is it assumed that people who have homosexual feelings must join the pro-gay marriage side?
Can some not conclude for themselves that gay marriage is harmful to society?

Beth:

I like your voice here; it sounds reasoned, and nuanced, and, well, sort of tender… Would that we all could treat each other with Godly tenderness.

But I wonder…
You worry about a category that is “sinful enough” (to move the community…) and I wonder why one would want to get as “close” to sinful as possible, yet not actually BE sinful…
Then, the implicit assertion that homosexual activity (can you believe I dislike that term as much as you might?) is somehow “less harmful” to society than are things like lying and stealing and murder on and on.

May I ask: if you want only those things YOU see as “harmful” to be accepted as such, are you willing to allow others that same privilege? Seems a fair question. Have we really devolved to the point that some assert certain things are NOT harmful, while others argue those things are? (My bias?? this is a red herring; a wild diversion from task)

I see your second paragraph as quite good and appropriate. When you say
“We can recognize the struggle to maintain a healthy weight and we can leave it up to the person and God. Why can't we do this with homosexuals?”
I agree, and it is precisely what I advocated in my post.

But your paragraph #3 puzzles me. May I respectfully ask you since when the criterion for sinful behavior is that which “is harmful”? Are we finite humans fully able to detect which of our behaviors are, in God’s sight, “harmful”? If this is the only hurdle to cross I can guarantee you that homosexuality will not be found to be “harmful”. IS homosexual activity an ancient social “foible” (your word) or, is it counter to God’s created order? (my word)
Even Carrol Grady agrees that homosexuality is not part of God’s created order. Yes, Carrol is not our authority, we think for ourselves, but how can any behavior that is seen as NOT being part of God’s created order (I do not know if you accept these terms) be seen as harmless??

I really wish you would/could talk more here… I like your voice.

If you hear me asking this in hostility, or as foe, please do not answer this post. It might help you to know (you already would, if you read this blog thoroughly) that I believe God will save ALL of us -- in time… Yes, I’m a Universalist. It’s my one certain “in” with my gay friends. To a person, they LOVE the notion that God saves all! (This alone serves to legitimize my voice to “them”… I believe ALL my homosexual friends and family will spend eternity with God… OK -- I said it..)

And by the way, (this is general -- for everyone) can we PLEASE dispense with the partisan posturing? Will ANY of my “gay-is-OK” friends out there PLEASE start to take those of us conservative, homophobic, (I hate that word) judgmental, bigoted, fellow Christians seriously??

(This could grow to be a really serious and real thread… God BLESS your honesty all…)

To my "Anonymous" friends: I deeply respect your choice of this designation... But I'm beginning to confuse you all; the "@11" voice is one person -- I know and like him/her. Might You PLEASE somehow distinguish yourselves so as to not confuse an aging mind??
Just a request...)

Bob, you asked which of the Levitical laws are applicable today, and which were for a certain people and time? Adventists have used the "clean" and "unclean" designations even today, but have ignored many of the others.

Lev. 19:20 requires punishment (not death), for a man who takes a slave of ANOTHER MAN, presumably, because she was the property of another. Was it sin? It was considered deserving of punishment, but not death.

As for where "Bible people" considered a physical anomaly to be a sin, this is the questioned asked of Jesus when he healed the lame man. They expressed a common belief of Jews of the time that a physical abnormality was due to sin, either the man's or his parents.

Surely, no abnormalities were part of God's original plan; however, if he still is one who gives us life, then he doesn't prevent such birth anomalies. No one is a perfect specimen of humanity, which should humble us all.

Carrol,

Abortion was far from my mind. By introducing etiology into our description of sexual orientation, have we not allowed it to be medicalized, however? Thus, if perinatal hormonal influence, or even genetics, were established as a root cause, may we not want to clinically regulate or treat it like we do diabetes, an abnormal thyroid condition, or childhood obesity? Not because it's sinful, but out of parental concern to 'right' it for the unborn! This is not the same as forcing a left-handed child to use the opposite hand for writing.:-) Or, should we rather let the children decide for themselves when they've grown and are mature enough to make a rational choice about the sexual orientation they want?

Wish someone would explain to me why, if true, among westerners gay men would be sexually attracted to gay men, and lesbians to lesbians.

Elaine:

I shall call you on this; I asked no such thing. (Tell me where I asked it?) What I asked is, was homosexuality specifically a part of God’s created order. It is this question which you continue to dodge and ignore. Can you answer directly? Or will you continue to obfuscate?? Your assertion that since He does not prevent our human anomalies He must therefore endorse them is utterly appalling and ignorant. I conclude you have not read my posts at all. And you merely seek to win an argument/further an agenda. If this is where we have agreed to go, I will most willingly step aside. You do not speak the language I speak, Elaine. Please be fair.

1. As in the discussion of ordination of women to ministry- it sparked new interest into "feminine" attributes of God that were always there in the text of the Bible, but often overlooked. With social change, new insights into God's characteristics came into the forefront. And ministers no longer squirm when they talk of such "motherly" attributes of God from the pulpit.

Does a corresponding treasure of theological insights exist about God in the Bible when a church accepts homosexuals as ordained ministers? (the tone is not sarcastic, but respectfully curious)

2. As for gays being attracted to gays- I always thought it was because there is less chance of rejection. Everyone has feelings and though we are attracted to many more than we approach, many factors play into why we pursue or entice select candidates- one of the most pervasive motives is minimizing risk, maximizing success. Joselito, do other cultures do otherwise?

Sorry, Bob, it was anonymous who asked regarding a Levitical passage. I probably shouldn't name any individual as there are now so many it's impossible sometimes to differentiate.

I will attempt to answer your question which I certainly didn't mean to ignore (have opinions, will answer).

The question: "was homosexuality specifically a part of God’s created order?" This was followed by: "Your assertion that since He does not prevent our human anomalies He must therefore endorse them is utterly appalling and ignorant." Please show where I said that God endorsed human anomalies. Does he allow them? Allowance is NOT endorsement.

No, I do not believe that homosexuality was specifically a part of God's created order. However, nothing we observe in our world today allows us the certitude of knowing something is God's order or that it's against it.

Christians have many had many explanations for sickness, death, and tragedies of all kind, including malformed babies and much more. I could not worship a God who "ordered" this. But, we all live in a very unperfect world. What do we do with things that are unexplainable? Usually, devise an explanation or answer or solution, if we define it as a "problem." In past times, many conditions that were problems, are now understood much better.

There are many things in life that are not easily solved. God didn't order human abuse, broken marriages, incest, polygamy, and much more. These are not new situations. The ancients had their ideas for which they offered cures or offerings. Much more important is how we treat people who are different from us; believe differently than we do, and we cannot even understand. Should we condemn or accept them as they are; or perhaps as God made them (a very novel and somewhat strange idea)?

Bob, you are most compassionate since I've known you, and believe in universal salvation. Perhaps you can explain to all of us here how you see that universal salvation applies to this very provocative subject. If it is called sin, surely, God will save us in our sins, unless those who believe in perfection will have eliminated all sin in the lives of those saved.

Beth--I just wanted to thank you for your comment. You succinctly summed up possible positions quite sensibly. I'd also never thought of the gluttony/fat person analogy, but it fits--even more so that science is finding that we might be more predisposed to body type that our carb choices determine.

Bob I'll try to respond to your questions before the blog runs away from me. I'm sorry I don't know how to quote. And by the way thank you for your kind words. I enjoy your questions and it takes quite a bit to offend me - you are no where close.

I guess what I was trying to point out was that we all, whether we admit it or not, rationalize parts of the Bible away (and here's the heresy - we should). Yes, we as humans are on shaky ground when we do it and it should always be done carefully and prayerfully but we do it. We must take the principles and apply them to modern life. Not to open another can of worms but I think the Bible is pretty clear women should be submissive to their husbands. I don't, though I love and adore my husband. I consider myself his equal and we solve our problems through mature, loving and respectful discussions and I just don't think it's a sin. It's one of those areas where I can understand why it was said in a patriarchal society 2000 years ago but just doesn't apply now. I can tie myself into theological knots trying to say that the Bible doesn't really say that or I can just admit it says it but reflects an unfortunate reality at the time (or I can say it says it so I'd better do it, and cover my head while I'm at it). I'm guessing many on this board would agree with me that women do not have to submit to their husbands and somehow they have rationalized what the Bible says. I also know many women who do consider me to be sinning because I don't acknowledge my husband as head of the household and my spiritual leader. I don't say that flippantly and I'm not trying to say that whatever I think goes. I can easily acknowledge many ways I have sinned and fallen short of God's ideal for me and I don't just brush off texts that challenge me. However, I don't just say, "Well the Bible says it, I believe it," either. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to make decisions as individuals about our behavior and as a community about what behaviors we will take a stand against. Those decisions must take into account what the Bible says but must also go beyond. I realize that is challenging but the truth is we do it anyway and just pretend we aren't. Do I think the Bible speaks out against people of the same sex having sex. Yes I do. Do I think the authors would say the same thing now if they were writing? I think not but I could be wrong. Perhaps I'm wrong about wanting equality in my marriage too. I could insert a little joke here about my husband being happy if I was wrong but the truth is he would be appalled - another reason to love him!

As for "getting close" to sinning, I wasn't trying to suggest what we can get away with but more questioning about beams and specks. When we confront someone else over their sins, we run the risk of severing a relationship. If we do that over a speck then we have sinned. There are sins that others commit that are worth confronting - that are so harmful that we must stand up to them. Then there are those that, if we confront, we are actually committing a greater sin (I believe anyway). Sometimes it is the loving thing to stand up to sin and sometimes it is the loving thing to acknowledge that we all fall short and move on. I think that level of harm is a very helpful measure in deciding which course to take. And yes I understand and share your concern about individuals deciding what is harmful. Listening to pedophiles argue that loving a child and having them return that love isn't harmful is enough to curl anyone's toes. So how do we decide? We humans are very very good at rationalizing and justifying what we WANT to do. We are also very good at pointing our fingers at other people so we feel better about ourselves. It is not an easy thing to know what the right course is. Why is it important to call homosexuality a sin? There is a lot of energy going into deciding whether people of the same sex having sex is a sin or not. How do we decide what is a sin? If the Bible says it and that's all? Am I sinning when I have sex with my husband during certain two weeks of my cycle? If not why not? What if I eat a steak from a cow that was not completely bled out?

I understand that I take a much looser approach to Biblical interpretation than do many SDAs. I personally do not believe that humans were created perfect to begin with so your question about homosexuality being part of God's "original" plan is kind of hard to answer. I can understand that if you believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first perfect humans and told them to multiply that homosexuality would not have a part in that. Since I don't believe humans came about that way, we aren't going to see it alike. I do think homosexuality has a place in a healthy world. I'm not sure any sexuality is necessary in a place with no death and hence no need for reproduction so I can't comment on heaven. I can't comment on a sinless earth either because one wonders about how it all would have worked out if humans kept reproducing and not dying but I digress.

As you can see, I think there are many issues here that go beyond just homosexuality. These really do need to be addressed before any kind of loving response can be given to the topic. It is good to talk!

Hi Daneen
I have an entire rant on the topic! Since Christians have been successful in beating back the gays they shouldn't rest but turn their sights to other sins like gluttony. I mean look at all the messages trying to seduce our children into the fat lifestyle, showing fat people being happy and normal and all. And then fat people flaunt it in our faces, eating in front of us out in public with no shame and offering our children lollipops and what not. Christian waiters should insist that they be allowed to not serve fat people dessert at restaurants since it violates their beliefs. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to adopt since research shows fat parents have fat kids (but any research that suggests there is a genetic component is just wrong and is done by fat activists trying to further their agenda). Weight should be considered strongly in custody hearings since kids would be negatively affected by the lifestyle. And of course, fat people shouldn't hold church offices, teach our children, be held up as any positive role model or be depicted in any way that puts their sinful lifestyle into a positive light. Until they show a willingness to surrender to the clear will of God and turn their back on their sinful inclinations by maintaining a healthy weight, we will love the sinner but hate the sin.

It goes on but you get the idea. It's tongue in cheek of course but several people have cautioned me that I might inadvertently start a new movement. I haven't even shared it much because it's so painful to write even as satire - it seems so nasty and offensive but I guess that's the point.

Bob, you asked which of the Levitical laws are applicable today, and which were for a certain people and time? Adventists have used the "clean" and "unclean" designations even today, but have ignored many of the others.

Surely, no abnormalities were part of God's original plan; however, if he still is one who gives us life, then he doesn't prevent such birth anomalies. No one is a perfect specimen of humanity, which should humble us all.
Posted by: Elaine | 27 December 2007 at 2:44

Elaine,
Sometimes I think you play fast and loose with some of your statements about the Bible--a very complex book. When you are talking about the Bible, it is important to be accurate.

You said:

...Yet in Bible times they were "certain" that such anomalies were sin, and should often be punished.

I asked:

Please point to a Levitical or other Bible text showing an example where "Bible people" considered a physical anomaly to be a sin.

You replied:

As for where "Bible people" considered a physical anomaly to be a sin, this is the questioned asked of Jesus when he healed the lame man. They expressed a common belief of Jews of the time that a physical abnormality was due to sin, either the man's or his parents.

How can you jump from saying that a "physical anomaly" was a sin (which I asked you to show from the Bible) to saying that the "anomaly" was due to sin?
Those are clearly two different positions, the latter of which you gave as an example of the first.
I wanted an example of the first.

Indeed, all "physical anomalies" are "due to" sin. The question was whether or not it was specific sin or the general presence of sin in the world. The Jews at the time believed the former. That is why Jesus said "...neither him, nor his parents...".
Obviously he was not saying that the man and his parents had never sinned in their lives!
He was trying to say that every disease or deformity was not a "punishment from God" for a sin committed.

So, I am maintaining that nobody held physical "anomalies" to be a sin.

Likewise, nobody here does either.

We are all trying to understand what to do about the "anomaly" in line with God's Word and will.

1. Thank you, Beth.

You wrote, "Those decisions must take into account what the Bible says but must also go beyond." This stance resonates very well with this Spectrum community, other words like "trajectory" and "evolution" of understanding in other threads attest to this as the essential contribution of Systematic theology, which we all enjoy doing in one form or another.

What tools and what guidelines help you decide which direction is right when going "beyond" what the Bible says? Are they tools which you would recommend to others, along with what advice on how to use them well?

It would be a relief to be convinced that homosexual orientation/acts are not sin (who relishes being called a homophobic for disagreeing with the present trends? "Compassionate" is a label applied automatically nowadays to those who believe it isn't a sin.) but societal acceptance, genetic predisposition, inborn orientation-clearly God allowed, lack of apparent harm (slippery rationale), caricaturing inconsistent application of other human frailties, supposed ignorance of Paul while under inspiration, don't add up to a sound compass for how to go "beyond" what the Bible says.

Masturbation, like homosexuality has existed throughout human history (and in nature, both are even more prevalent)yet the Bible remains silent/neutral on it. That topic has inherent leeway (because of the lack of biblical condemnation) to use these "softer" tools above to come to one's own conclusions. Homosexuality demands something more substantial.

And whatever approach is used, it should be a timeless principle- able to support where else we live "beyond" the Bible.

Of course, if that timeless principle were extracted from the Bible, it would be powerful.

(reminder: on this hermeneutical question I am not talking about how to treat a human who is homosexual- the Bible is very clear on loving and accepting all humans, but whether it is to be regarded as a sin or not.)

Arlyn I don't think that is the issue in the advance on the book we are discussing. The advance would suggest that the homosexual by one hook or crook become church members with- out genuine change in lifestyle. Just don't ask don't tell is how the advance seems to read to me. My first suggestion was not on the book but how it was presented to the potential buyer. There is a Balm in Gilead!!! If Christ could heal the lamb, the halt, the blind, and the leper, he could heal human behavioral aberrations.

My next door neighter and the significant other were homosexual who became unable to do normal yardwork or house repairs. I mowed their lawn, raked and blew their leaves off the walks, drive, and decks, I repaired their plumbing. I was to the extent of my aging bones, a good neighbor. No I didn't leave any literature nor did I lecture them. No one else in the subdivision would have anything to do with them. They had a house warming and we were the only neighbors who came. All the rest where from their work or circle of friends of like orientation.

Just one question: If a person expresses a contrary view on this blog why is he damned when those living in open sin are protected? One would think that the aggrressive, vindictive,
hostile traits of the homosexuals I have dealt with have invaded this blog. Tom

Gerhard

We tried to get a range of views in our book. The remarks by Roy Gane hold that all acts of homosexual genital intimacy are sinful.

As Johnny A. Ramirez noted at the very beginning of this thread, in "Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament" (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007) Andrews University Biblical Scholar reportedly offers conservative interpretations that differ from many in our book.

I say "reportedly" because I have not yet read Davidson's book.

I strongly recommend that all of us who are interested in this topic purchase and read Davidson's massive study (844 pages!) as well as the smaller one (about 250 pages?) David Ferguson, Fritz Guy and I are editing.

It's a good idea to get as many informed views before us and to read the best spokespersons for each. Only in this way can we make any progress.

Thank you!

Dave

Anonymous@11:

Please note I placed in quotation marks:

Yet in Bible times they were "certain" that such anomalies were sin"

That was the prevailing opinion, also expressed by Job's "friends" and was believed by the Jews of that time, and also much later. Those who asked if the blind man's condition (anomaly, abnormality) was caused by his or his parents' sins. Jesus replied that neither were responsible. Why would they have asked that question if it was not a common undertanding?

Today, how many Christians give "sin" as the reason for catastrophes, deaths, sickness, etc. Sin is a wonderful scapegoat. What would we have to blame (and blame we must) without it? (See Rene Girard for a full discussion of this.)

Tom--I just wanted to affirm your good neighbor deeds and support for your lesbian neighbors, even though you didn't wholeheartedly endorse their lifestyle. Imagine what the world would be like if we treated those we didn't understand or fully agree with with such love? I hope I can do the same to those whose views I don't understand (i.e. strict literalists ; )

"As for gays being attracted to gays- I always thought it was because there is less chance of rejection. Everyone has feelings and though we are attracted to many more than we approach, many factors play into why we pursue or entice select candidates- one of the most pervasive motives is minimizing risk, maximizing success. Joselito, do other cultures do otherwise?"

Thank you, Arlyn. Might your explanation - "minimizing risk, maximizing success" - not also possibly apply in other contexts such as ethnicity, race, class, religion...? Why we tend/seem to be "attracted" to someone within our own group? Because that's where we/they - gay and gay, lesbian and lesbian - belong?

Tom: I appreciate your deep and real love for homosexual people. Your actions do speak louder than words. And I do hope the upcoming book is more than - utilizing the guilt trip to demand full membership (not just participation-which has always been open. So this includes church leadership and pastorship) without settling the question whether we as a church do recognize gay marriages and their consummation(monogamous and lifelong gay commitment)as holy too. The theological question begs to be settled.

Elaine: "Sin is a wonderful scapegoat"- that comes right out of the Old Testament sanctuary rituals! Of course, I know you meant it in good humored sarcasm. But blaming is just a negative form of discerning causation- which is intregal to rationality. And a answer/solution is only as good as the question asked. So cause-finding is a valid activity.

By the way, thanks for introducing me to Girard -he is a great apologist for how christianity handles the blaming/"seeking for causes" drive and baptizes it into extinction through Jesus' innocent death as a victim (and sin-bearer). So, yes, sin is a good scapegoat, and Jesus is the most excellent antidote in a dual sense.

Hey Arlyn I thought I was asking everyone else that question :) How do we decide what is a sin? I'll try to answer what guidelines I use. Do I recommend them for others. No, not unless God leads others to see it that way too. My view of the Bible insists on a very high degree of ambiguity that others might find very uncomfortable. I see it as a document written by humans trying to understand and please God that has flashes of divine revelation. I simply cannot reconcile the large amounts of brutality and pettiness with a true picture of a loving God.

I use the Golden Rule and Micah 6:8 as the overarching framework. I use the value of love as the most important value. Everything must be tested by asking, "Is this the most loving thing to do in this situation?" I try and apply that value to both humans and animals - the animals being clearly extra-Biblical since they had a very raw deal in the Bible. While I think the Bible holds love as the overall principle, I also think there are many instances where God is portrayed as anything but and people are encouraged to act in ways that are just not loving. Did God really say that women should be unclean for two weeks longer if they give birth to a girl rather than a boy? I mean how petty and unloving. I have no trouble pointing to that and saying it is wrong. They thought it would make God happy but they were wrong. How can I say that when the Bible clearly says differently? Because it violates the principle of love which honors and values the worth of both sexes equally. Even the Bible must be held to the same standard of love.

You listed a bunch of things that support the idea of homosexuality not being a sin but concluded they were not enough since the Bible still does not approve. Personally they are enough for me to conclude it. Based on the principle of love, is there anything about two people falling in love and committing themselves to each other that is wrong? I don't see it. Is it arrogant of me to assume that I know more than the Bible? Only if the Bible really is the inerrant word of God. Just the task of trying to be loving and compassionate is enough to keep me humble - I fall so short so often. I always liked the Quaker view on doctrine that says if they can ever master the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount then they would move on to other things.

I'll ask another question now, not just to Arlyn. Why should it be considered a sin? Is just the Bible saying so enough to make it so?

Daneen: There are no true strict literalists to love. Only selective literalists who proudly wear the wrong label :)

(Does that make them easier or harder to love?)

"Why should it be considered a sin? Is just the Bible saying so enough to make it so?"

Yes. That is the starting point for a christian.

I do appreciate your explanation of how you select certain Biblical principles like Love as overriding other aspects. Then you go on to explain that Love is - what makes loving sense to yourself. Your honesty is bracingly refreshing.

Well, here I go, I am a Cuban gay SDA, and I have been reading some of the comments over here, and I wanted to add some personal perspective over here.

As a gay Christian man, I feel no less in integrity, decency, compassion, consecration, or any other Christian virtue my counterpart straight brothers and sisters have. I am not a pedophile, I rather cry of anger when I see such an abuse, and have never thought on raping nobody, hmm, what can make somebody believe everybody can fit into this pattern.

Since I was very little, as far as I can remember, I always felt preference for boys, I didn't particularly wanted to play with dolls, or girl toys or dress like my mom, I just felt I was a boy who was attracted to boys.

That feeling I had for boys, never abandoned me, but I had heard those feelings were not good, they were evil, I heard all those myths about homosexuality I still hear in some of the posts here, and I fought what I felt inside with all my strenght.

I dated as many girls as I could, I could not accept what I was feeling, I wanted to be accepted by everybody, I wanted my parents to be proud of me, and I did all I could. I never intended to go to intimate with girls, our culture didn't make it so easy, so when i became a teenager, something always happened that I never got to get intimate with my girlfriends, not that I didn't want to, I wanted to prove everybody i could be with a woman, but my real feelings were for boys.

When I was in the university, I heard about Jesus and His power to transform people's lives, I wanted to give it a try, I brought my same sex attraction to his feet, and trusted in faith He was going to change my life and turn me into a heterosexual. The day I baptized I met a girl who played the piano in my baptism and I approached her, and we started a relationship, we even planned to get married, I wanted to do the "right" thing, but again, as a Christian, we couldn't have intimate relationships before marriage, and i continued without experiencing real sex with a woman.

I prayed day and night, I fasted, sometimes I spent entire nights on my knees by my bed in prayer and cry, I remember once I asked my grandma, nobody could enter my room, We were studying Jeremiah,a dn I wanted to do what he did, spent three days on my knees and I told my God, I wouldn't stand up until he transformed me... and nothing happened.

My girlfriend and I broke up and I had already been a youth leader in my church, God's blessings in my church's ministry were huge, God over and over used me for something big, and I founded and created a couple of ministries for the church, I did missionary work, I diligently studied my Bible and my lesson, and my devotional, I came from the university, grabbed something really quick and then to visit a hospital, a prison, or attend a small group meeting, or go to church, that was my entire younger years, all dedicated to my God and my church.

Everything done, once there were some whispers that i was gay, it immediately spread through the church and all of the sudden, I was forbidden to participate in any church leadership program, or stand in the pulpit or go up in the platform for no reason, I was confined to a bench only, many "brothers and sisters" stopped talking to me, nobody wanted to sit by my side, people didn't even great me when I came in or out, the pastor sent some people to follow me and see if they could confirm I was speaking with guys. Once I was speaking in the street with my cousin and the pastor immediately called me in a board meeting to tell me i was at a given time and place talking to a guy... and I laughed and said, he is my cousin for God's sake.

I never had nobody to talk to, the day they suspected I was gay, I had the common reaction any gay might expect if he/she dares to come out and talk with the pastor. The church did not help me but rather, opened the back doors for me to leave the church, but I steal, go to church on Sabbath, I do not eat meat, I do what an SDA is supposed to do, and I still call myself an SDA.

Today, I am convinced and believe me, after a lot of deep study of the Scriptures, visiting different sources, and without letting what is more convenient for me to hear stay on the way, that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality the way we know it today. Each of the 8 verses in the entire Bible that mention something related to same sex relations, deal with idolatry, prostitution, rape, or lack of hospitality.

But my objective is not to get into theological argument over here, but underlining that in my church, I have always been there for my straight brothers and sisters, I have heard their struggles and i have prayed for them, I have been happy when they get married with the person they love, ... and never my friends were there for me, when they knew i was gay, they stepped away as I was infected, and if you dared to talk, they treat you as a demonized person that needs to be exorcised.

Like me there are thousands of gay man and women in the SDA church, in silence, suffering alone without anybody to talk to, that's why we have to create ministries like the one I created to help the Hispanic SDA communities, we have 100 something members and everyday, we receive a new membership request of people desperate, disoriented, trying to reconcile their faith and their sexuality, some are married and they cannot go on, some are even pastors and ministers living hell on Earth, and the church, instead of being a safe heaven for the ones who suffer and cry, instead of easing the pain, makes it worst.

I pray that book is read but our straight brothers and sisters, and help them understand better who we really are,a nd what how difficult is the journey for us, and start to accept us, in whatever part of the journey we are, without judging, without inflicting more pain, but in loving support and prayer, and if it God's will to do something in that persons' life, He will do it, but not when we want, but when the moment comes, whereas today, tomorrow, or in 10 years from now, all we have to do is being there for the needy soul.

A sincere cry from the heart. Are we listening?

Beth, Arlyn's comments are mine exactly:

"I do appreciate your explanation of how you select certain Biblical principles like Love as overriding other aspects. Then you go on to explain that Love is - what makes loving sense to yourself. Your honesty is bracingly refreshing."

She honestly admits what we all do: selectively useing (and often absusing the Bible for our own ends. If the Bible does not exhibit love (as it does in many places) how can we believe that God is love?

We should all maintain both love and integrity as the highest goals. Beth is demonstrating both. Thanks, Beth.

Anonymous (Cuban youth),

Is the same sex attraction you experience toward gay men or heterosexual men (guys)?

I arrived at Loma Linda University School of Dentistry the first of August 1958 as co-chair of the Department of Orthodontics.

In November we had a first faculty meeting of substance. The central agenda issue was the fate of a dental student.

It seems the student had married in the summer between his junior and senior year in dental school. On or about Oct. 25, the wife (mother) gave birth to a 6 pound 11 ounce baby boy. Faculty wives had calculated lunar months, days, and hours, and by no mathematical configuration could they come up with 10 lunar months from the wedding to the birth. Ah Ha, The couple had conceived the child out of wedlock and during a school year beside.

The written student handbook explicitly said, no marriages during the school year. Since the child had been conceived during the school year the student must be disciplined.

This issue was simply should the student be expelled or placed on a year’s probation with the possibility of returning within one year, if he maintained a good spiritual attitude.

I was astounded. I asked for the floor. I said, gentlemen, do you have any idea what you are labeling that poor little wife? Have you no idea what you are calling that little boy?

The issue we should be debating is the school policy of no marriage during the school year. We are the source of their dilemma. The problem is ours not theirs. I move that the Student Handbook be revised. I move than the faculty send a letter of congratulations to the new parents. And let us hear no more of the matter.

I was overruled. The student was given one year’s probation. If he behaved—not spelled out—he could return in regular standing. The policy continued for eight long years. Until my classmate Judson Klooster became dean. Then reason prevail.

Now we have Loma Linda faculty/administrators promoting the consideration of same sex marriages. "We/ve come a long way baby."
Tom

Tom,
Just in passing...You probably knew and taught my first cousin, Jack Lilly, in Orthodontics school.He passed away about 4 years ago.

...But the meaning of "come a long way" has yet to be fully comprehended.

pat

Pat. I did teach Jack Lilly. Those were great days.

I have lost four of my students. Dr. Howard Conley, Dr. Carole Bright, Jack Lilly, and Alden Chase.

My best teacher Dr. Alden Moore pasted away just a month ago at the age of 94.

Tom

I too would like to share my experience.

I stopped having relations because they were not pleasant anymore. So many people said it so often from the pulpit that I started to believe them.

Unfortunately, now I'm not interested in neither sex and am probably autosexual. At least there's one person on earth I'm attracted to: myself. It's very safe, but it's probably a sin, as well. Being in love with oneself.

Some day the autosexuals will also come forward and want to be recognized and permitted in the church, etc.

Thanks for listening.

Not anonymous, how brave of you to post such a candid and painful comment. Futher complicating the issue is that we have no idea if you are male, female or other.

How unkind of ministers to have taken away what little sexual pleasure life afforded you. There are probably more autosexuals out there than want to come forward. It's not as flattering to admit in front of a group of people, or family even, that a person is autosexual. It elicits uncontrolable laughter, contempt and pity, but at least they don't banish you from church like they do same-sex folk.

I hope you don't start a trend as it's better to be in touch, pardon my use of words, with someone else other than yourself when it comes to intimacy or appreciation.

On the other hand, perhaps more autosexuals, as you describe yourself, will come out of the closet and take their peculiar stand in the limelight. That will be a testimony, of sorts, to the power of pulpit persuasion about the sin of same-sex unions.

All the best to you and your self-referential movement.

Tom, during the mid-40s when I was in college, any student marrying during the school year was automatically expelled! This was during WW II and many students were being drafted, and chose to marry the girl of their choice, meaning that both of them would be expelled. Some of the girls were nursing students, and it seemed preposterous as what they needed most at that time was to complete their nursing degrees. Stupidity still abounds! When I tell this to young people today they are absolutely unbelieving and astounded.

Time answers many problems. Remember when the "guilty party" had to be identified by the church in order to maintain membership? Many preferred to walk away rather than air their most personal problems. Some of which were abuses by their pious spouse or incestous or violent behavior. Homosexuality will follow the same path in a few years. What was once so "sinful" will become another bit of church history and go the way of makeup, jewelry, movies, coffee, and much more. It's always OPS (Other people's sins) which give us bragging rights of superiority.

Dave:

Not to get too picky here, but you used a word that is, well, kind of “loaded”. You said “It's a good idea to get as many informed views before us and to read the best spokespersons for each. Only in this way can we make any progress.”

Progress. Sounds good; but it sounds like you have a specific destination in mind?? Well, to me our church will have made “progress” when, for example, women are ordained, Atonement ceases to be seen as penal and legal, and we “fix” our sanctuary problem. (OK -- let’s go there some other time!)

So it seems plain that to you, “progress” will mean we all come to act and believe as if we find nothing whatsoever “wrong/sinful/against God’s created order” (pick your preferred term…) with gay sex. Am I close? Or maybe by progress you mean arriving at the destination where we do not conflate treating active homosexuals with kindness and mercy and compassion with accepting their behavior?

Except that I’d wager that every participant here who does not believe that gay sex is “OK” with God already treats their gay friends and neighbors and family like Dr Tom Z has demonstrated. Why a Christian would need “many informed views” simply to be decent and loving and kind escapes me.

So, just wondering…

PS -- let me ask a sobering question: If by some twist of fate, the SDA church did in fact adopt the position of “progress” which I’m guessing you dream of, how many current SDA members would chose to leave this particular fold??
I ask this because I already stay in a church which holds many many “official” beliefs which I don’t…

Elaine:

Several things…

You and I are not connecting well at all here.

First--->

When I said;

"Your assertion that since He does not prevent our human anomalies He must therefore endorse them is utterly appalling and ignorant." (and your response was:
“Please show where I said that God endorsed human anomalies. Does he allow them? Allowance is NOT endorsement.”)

I was referring to this comment of yours:

“Surely, no abnormalities were part of God's original plan; however, if he still is one who gives us life, then he doesn't prevent such birth anomalies. No one is a perfect specimen of humanity, which should humble us all.”

Given that you were responding to my belief that acting on gay urges is another symptom of our human fallenness -- a departure from God’s created order, and given that you have consistently held that there is nothing whatsoever “wrong” with gay sex in God’s eyes, it follows logically that failure to prevent, along with your belief that gay sex is fine with God, we approach something like an endorsement. Still seems that way to me.

Sorry if I’ve misrepresented your position.

Second--->

You said:

“Perhaps you can explain to all of us here how you see that universal salvation applies to this very provocative subject.”

Since you were part of the conversations of several months ago where we (well, mostly me I guess) beat this subject to a bloody pulp, it baffles me that you would hint that I must believe homosexuals somehow need their own special category of saving. That’s just weird. (Besides, my Universalist stance is much more about God than it is about us and our “sin”.) How many times must I insist that I do not hold myself to be better that any other human before you start believing me?

Third--->

In response to the letter by our Anonymous gay Cuban participant, you said this:

“A sincere cry from the heart. Are we listening?”

Let me ask What, for you, would be an indication that we are? You seem to imply some aren't;
Who???

Sorry if I’m being a pain in your neck Elaine!

Arlyn I appreciate your response. I wasn't quite sure though whether you felt comfortable with what I said or whether you were pretty appalled and were being very polite. Either is ok, just wasn't quite sure how to respond. I did want to point out that, while I do, in the end, have to go with what seems most loving to me, it is not done without prayerful consideration. My views on what love is have been heavily influenced by the Bible, especially the life of Christ, and I'm not stubbornly trying to wing it on my own. I know I've been wrong but I also believe that in the end I am answerable to God for how I have loved. I try and be humble recognizing there is plenty still to learn but I have to draw the line at what seems unloving to me no matter the source. And I agree with you that, for a Christian, what the Bible says about sin is the best place to start. For me anyway though, it isn't where it ends.

I also want to say that, while I personally do not think homosexual behavior is a sin, I don't think that those who disagree in their hearts are wrong or are acting unlovingly. I understand how one could see it as not fitting into God's original plan. I do think the true heart of the matter is how we treat homosexuals in relationships and whether the loving thing is to take a stand and speak out or whether the loving thing is to welcome them into the community and figure it is between them and God. I think it is true that many people are not nasty to a gay person's face but when they single them out and work actively to deny them a full and dignified membership in God's family then I have to disagree. Of course SDAs are not alone in struggling to figure out how to manage this but I think many more conservative churches are painful years and years away from a welcoming response.

Not anonymous: Unfortunately, now I'm not interested in neither (sic) sex and am probably autosexual. At least there's one person on earth I'm attracted to: myself. It's very safe, but it's probably a sin, as well. Being in love with oneself.

N.A., I came across the following paragraph and it reminded me of your fear of being in love with yourself.

"Loving one’s self is not a sin. You must love yourself and feel good about yourself. Boost your spirit up and dream big. Dreaming is free and actually, it’s the first step to acquiring it. Dream it, believe it, and achieve it. That’s how simple the law of attraction is and it NEVER fails." (http://www.versusclips.com/the-secret-law-of-attraction/about/)

Like someone else said earlier, "if you don't love yourself first, how can you expect others to love you?"

Beth:

Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. Your send-up on Gluttony still has me thinking.

To your question; Why should it be considered a sin? Let me share part of my answer, then share another perspective. Through the eyes of Black pastors as they seek to minister to their flocks and communities.

My answer should be obvious after you read these brief excerpts from Hays book:

The gospel is among other things, a vindication of God. . . Paul abruptly modulates into a contrasting key by turning to condemn the unrighteousness of fallen humanity. . . . The ensuing discussions (1:19-32) explains, documents, and elaborates this human unrighteousness. . . The genius of Paul’s analysis, of course, lies in his refusal to posit a catalog of sins as the cause of human alienation from God. Instead, he delves to the root; all other depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the created against the Creator.
…According to Paul’s analysis, God’s “wrath” against his fallen human creatures takes the ironic form of allowing them the freedom to have their own way. Abandoning them to their own devices…
Paul’s point: idolatry finally debases both the worshiper and the idol. God’s judgment allows the irony of sin to play itself out; the creature’s original impulse toward self-glorification ends in self-destruction. The refusal to acknowledge God as Creator ends in blind distortion of the creation. p.385

Rebellion against this Creator who may be “understood and seen in the things that he has made” is made palpable in the flouting of sexual distinctions that are fundamental to God’s creative design…

...Thus the complementarity of male and female is given a theological grounding in God’s creative activity. By way of sharp contrast, in Romans 1 Paul portrays homosexual behavior as a “sacrament” (so to speak) of the anti-religion of human beings who refuse to honor God as Creator. When human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator’s design. Thus, Paul’s choice of homosexuality as an illustration of human depravity is not merely random, it serves his rhetorical purposes by providing a vivid image of humanity’s primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the Creator.

For the Black pastors perspective, try this essay/column:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2005/08/08/black_pastors_s...

PS: Since you seem to have the knack for story telling, try retelling yourself the story of the prodigal son wherein the son is gay. As our Anonymous gay Cuban friend has noted, too often the church plays the role of the "older brother". Sad.

A friend just copied and emailed me the posts on the last two pages, which I've been unable to access.

I am writing with tears in my eyes after reading Anonymous Cuban's email. I have heard so many hundreds of stories like that. Someone earlier said that membership for glbti's has always been open in our church. Well, I have heard many stories of people who have lost their membership just because someone found out they were homosexual. And those who don't lost their membership are usually treated like second-class members or worse, as this story indicates.

What is it about homosexuality that cause supposedly loving Christians to treat their Christian brothers and sisters this way?

Beth, your rant about fat people is funny, but also sad in that it points up how foolish some of the things said about homosexuals sound.

I have often asked your question - why should a loving committed homosexual relationship be considered sin? It is never mentioned in the Bible. I agree that, as Arlyn said, what the Bible says is the starting point for a Christian. But where does the Bible have anything to say about this particular kind of same-sex behavior?

For those who are going to bring up the clobber texts again, is "what the Bible says" what selective literalists say it says, or is it what those who take historical and societal context into consideration say it says, or can we live with the fact that we don't all read the Bible the same way?

And dear friend Bob,

I do take your chastizing seriously, and no doubt I deserve it.

I really had no idea that my statement about abortion would offend anyone. I read it as a quote from a Christian Right theology professor at a well-known Baptist university. That is, I read the suggestion that this might be a way to deal with it in the future.

But did you really mean to swear at me, Bob? ("Who the hell are you referring to?") Of course, I wasn't referring to anyone on the blog. As far as I know, Adventists don't take a no-abortion-in-any-case stand.

If anything I've said here has been offensive to anyone, I'm sorry. Please take into consideration that I am, forgive me, just an emotional mother, not trained in laws of logic or debate.

Bob, it does seem that I must be talking past you, as so much of what I have said is responded to in a way that there is a misunderstanding on both our parts.

1. I do not believe that God either endorses or wishes for birth abnormalities. How could that be inferred by “Surely, no abnormalities were part of God's original plan; however, if he still is one who gives us life, then he doesn't PREVENT (not synonymous with ENDORSE) such birth anomalies. No one is a perfect specimen of humanity, which should humble us all.” Sorry that it came across as God endorsing such anomalies. It is not, nor has been my opinion, ever. He desires the best for us, but life doesn't always turn out that way, does it? In this case, your assumptions did not reflect what I meant to say and to transpose it to gay sex. If God does not prevent birth defects, does he prevent homosexuals being born? That has not been the human experience.

2. Univeral salvation: No one is eliminated, so there is little, it would seem, to discuss on this or any other if we all will be saved. Which, BTW, I also believe, but the official church position is what we are discussing, I thought.

3. In response to the letter by our Anonymous gay Cuban participant, I answered:

“A sincere cry from the heart. Are we listening?”

You asked:

"Let me ask What, for you, would be an indication that we are? You seem to imply some aren't; Who???"

My suggestion is that we should listen to those most intimately knowledgable of what it means to be gay. Surely, you have read posts here that do not adopt that position. Yes, most of us seem to, but not everyone.

In the future, I will try to be more clear in my statements so there will not be any misunderstanding. I appreciate your request for clarification.

To demand a specific description in the Bible of every variation of a general area that is condemned, before relinquishing it-- may reveal what mindset?

"Gay sex with love and commitment" was never mentioned in the Bible, only the subject of gay sex.

Joselito, perhaps my use of "etiology" was ill-advised. I should have referred to circumstances that allow homosexuality to occur. I suppose if it were possible to determine left-handedness before birth, that could also be corrected. It hasn't been too many years since left-handedness was considered to be of the devil. But wouldn't baseball have lost some great leftie players? And why would parents want to correct a child's sexuality unless they considered it a sin? Perhaps because of society's homophobia?

Personally, I believe this world would be a far less interesting, colorful, dynamic place without its homosexual members.

"Masturbation, like homosexuality has existed throughout human history (and in nature, both are even more prevalent) yet the Bible remains silent/neutral on it. That topic has inherent leeway (because of the lack of biblical condemnation) to use these "softer" tools above to come to one's own conclusions. Homosexuality demands something more substantial."

Well, some people would point to Onan. I guess it depends on how much authority you would cede to Ellen White. She speaks a great deal about it, though not all she said is currently accepted. In her day it was not a topic for polite conversation - therefore, the euphemism "solitary vice." But homosexuality was, because of Freud, very much talked about then, and she says not a word about that.

I would like to see the biblical reference that condemns a monogamous, committed relationship between two people of a homosexual orientation.

Hi Bob!

I beleive we make progress on any issue when we more accurately understand any one or more of the following: (1) how things ought to be; (2) how things actually are; and (3) what we can do to make the gap between these somewhat smaller.

Thanks!

Dave

Anybody:

I've been wondering why the "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" formula doesn't seem to have the currency among us it once had. It is plausible advice on first glance, after all.

Is it possible that this is one of the casualties of our more recent emphasis upon sin as what one "is" rather than what one "does."

If sin is what one "is," it is not possible to "Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin." Or is it?

Thank you!

Dave

"I would like to see the biblical reference that condemns a monogamous, committed relationship between two people of a homosexual orientation."

Carrol, it doesn't exist. Because the Bible is not an encyclopedia listing all possible sins in every form imaginable.

Thus:

"Gay sex with love and commitment" was never mentioned in the Bible, only the subject of gay sex.

So, those who smoke cigarettes can use that same excuse to say the Bible doesn't condemn smoking.

Or internet affairs without sex.

How literalistic are we getting as liberals? Funny, how it comes full circle.

Sin as "is" and Sin as "doing".

Loving the Sinner and hating the Sin was always hard, nay, almost impossible, except from being "in" God.

a. Historically, one of the only ways to practice doing both sprang from family bonding. Hence, Carrol's voice is an authentic example of this poignant love.

b. In more modern times, we have been handed a more recent medical phenomena mentioned before on this blog- that model of inherited genetic predisposition and choice adding up to the full disease/syndrome in cases of alcholism, obesity, diabetes, drug addiction, and many other conditions. So society in general has muted its accusation of poor willpower into a more understanding pity with strong encouragement to avoid the choices that tip the balance into full expression. Concerned exhortation with unconditional support is our approach as physicians in addressing those so inclined by genetics.

Anybody want to add more insight on this?:
Is there more in psychology or sociology? Perhaps politics?

I thought America was rather prudent in trying to make it clear that they didn't hate the people of a country even as military action was being taken against selective leaders within that country. (But let's not go there, if this would start a distracting tangent.)

Dave

I have used love the sinner and hate the sin in this thread and got hammered for it. Anyone who is a parent should be able to understand the dichotomy. Pastoring is encouraging people but not sin. Salvation is saving the sinner and destroying the sin. Tom

Dave

>>I've been wondering why the "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" formula doesn't seem to have the currency among us it once had.Is it possible that this is one of the casualties of our more recent emphasis upon sin as what one "is" rather than what one "does."<<

I suggest that it is not often that you hear sermons on "sin" anymore and what to do about it. No one wants to be considered a sinner because then we are "not ok." Much nicer to focus on relationships and do away with both concepts that require that other "lonely" word, "repentance."

>>If sin is what one "is," it is not possible to "Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin." Or is it?<<

Christ was "reckoned" to be sin for us and though loved by the father was "forsaken" for it.
If sin is what one "really is" ("being dead in tresspasses and sins") with no desire of any change to holiness then too they will be forsaken and destroyed by the one who, "is not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance."

I suggest that it is not often that you hear sermons on "sin" anymore and what to do about it. No one wants to be considered a sinner because then we are "not ok." Much nicer to focus on relationships and do away with both concepts that require that other "lonely" word, "repentance."

The sad thing is, Pat, that if our relationship with God is not healthy, all our emphasis on human relationships are ultimately shallow, selfish and doomed to spectacular failure.
There is not a natural good bone in the human body, and I continue to learn that every day about myself and others (and I still like to think the best of everyone in practice).

This is why personal holiness is important, and why "It doesn't hurt anyone" cannot trump God's word.

One of the hardest things I have had to do--and it continues to be so--is to stop idolizing my rational bent. I have found that at the times when I have acquiesced to God's superior knowledge, I have learned things and benefited in ways that my blind self could never have imagined.
That is where the spiritual growth is, and it's not "deep inside your heart".

Joselito, it's true that no one knows with complete certainty the etiology of homosexuality. But we can undoubtedly see a trend in where research is leading.

Carrol,

First, about your inability to access subsequent pages of this thread. Try re-logging; click "Account" then "Edit".

Now, my reply:

I don't know if researchers really pay much attention to trends. Don't they love to challenge and take exception to what may be considered settled conclusions? While research objectives and method may not vary between investigators, the presuppositions each one brings to their work help explain in part difference in their results.

You may have already heard of the new book by psychologists
Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/5.52.html

Briefly, they tested ex-gay programs to find out if this caused any harm and if they resulted in genuine change. The same authors have published an earlier book, "Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate," (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000).

What's new? I've been re-reading an excellent piece by Guenther Haas, where he reviews the book by Jones and Yarhouse alongside 5 other volumes. Interestingly and not surprisingly, what we've read on this blog so far reflect similar divergence of opinions regarding the biblical teaching on sexual orientation between revisionists and traditionalists.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200209/ai_n9129492

Haas' account of the contribution of Jones and Yarhouse:

'Jones and Yarhouse embrace an "interactionist hypothesis," also held by many other experts in this area, where various psychological, environmental, and biological factors, together with human choice, contribute to homosexual orientation. This hypothesis recognizes that there may be predispositions and experiences that provide a "push" in the direction of homosexuality; but no push by itself causes one to be a homosexual. In other words, human choice is the decisive factor, even if there is mounting evidence supporting causal influence. Human actions are never simply the result of deterministic causes.'

I'm interested to hear from the experience of professional SDA counselors and if their own findings have led them to change their beliefs. Isn't this conversation about a new book on Adventist perspectives?

Anonymous@11,
Thank you for your feedback...
That has been my experience also. While wanting to know who I am, I find relief by not looking deeper and deeper inside but by looking outward and upward to Him and His word. I know that both the "dark"...as well as the "good reflections of our created being" yet dwell in us and I also like to see the good in others. Nontheless, the dark reaches deep and we need a savior or I am in deep trouble as are others!

Joselito,good point on "interactionist hypothesis" and surely that is part of the basis of at least one view in the new book.

Well, I must prepare to teach tomorrows lesson...see ya'll next week.

"I would like to see the biblical reference that condemns a monogamous, committed relationship between two people of a homosexual orientation."

Why do we have to have specific condemnations of every possible act? Someone could say, "I would like to see the biblical reference that condemns responsible use of marijuana."

We have the Biblical teaching of what God did in creation, how he created male and female for both the purposes of a complementary relationship and for procreation. That's the positive norm against which everything else has to be judged.

Many of us have homosexual friends and family members, and it is easier to talk about these situations face to face than in a forum like this. And I have had conversations such as that with some readers of this board. How we relate to friends in love is one discussion; how we interpret Scripture can be a separate discussion.

God created us male and female, intending us to have a permanent and exclusive relationship of mutual self-giving, a relationship that is fruitful and life-giving.

Can we find theologians who will spend more time unpacking that, and building a theology of sexuality based on creation? I would hope some faculty at some of our colleges or perhaps the Biblical Research Institute would take hold of such a project. We say there are two Edenic institutions that remain--marriage and the Sabbath, but have spent more time talking about the latter.

Pat,

Another name for "interactionist hypothesis" is Open theism!

We all want to return to Eden, to a Utopia, and yet no one has, it is an impossible dream short of heaven. In all marriages, there are none perfect, and yet we project our own ideas of a long-ago, imagined Garden where all was perfection. That is how it is described by the stories told, yet the stories were told thousands of years ago and does anyone believe that they were absolutely accurate in every detail? Surely not when there are two separate creations described in the first two books of Genesis, with contradictions. In the first story, plants and animals were created before man; in the second, man was created first and then plants and animals. That should be a clue that there were different story tellers.

Attempting to settle all our contemporary problems with answers from the Bible, if followed, would be a disaster; i.e., from battle we would choose the virgins and bring them home as wives; we would banish new mothers of female infants for two weeks; also during her menstrual periods. These were all GOD-given LAWS! They are completely flouted by everyone here; meaning God's rules are out-dated. Oh yes, and if unable to get to the "storehouse" to pay your tithe, simply use the money to buy strong drinks and party. Ignored today?

Consistency is either a hoboblin or little minds or a jewel. Jesus, who we claim to follow, never said a single word about homosexuality. Paul is the NT source for our topic, but why is that still applicable when his instructions for women to remain silent is ignored? And the OT is so often used as a guide when Christians, should use the Christian canon, and not the Jewish, for their guide and instructions.

If sin is an inherent, and inborn condition, then it is an impossibility to separate ourselves from that congenital condition until we are in the Kingdom. None of us has, nor ever will be free of sin until then. Biblically, abomination was the word often used regarding many rules and laws given. Is that word synonymous with sin? Then are we as humans an abomination, or created in the image of God?

a. Dear Bill,
Just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed your reference to "responsible use" of marijuana, because it does pop up in our pain clinic frequently.

b. Two logical errors regarding lack of evidence.

1. "But where does the Bible have anything to say about this particular kind of same-sex behavior?" appeals to lack of specific evidence against something. It doesn't make it right.

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false." Wickipedia

2. Just because one personally struggles to understand why a loving God called some actions sinful- doesn't make them unsinful.

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead." Wikipedia

This idea of seeking the Edenic ideal is certainly unattainable. Where does it stop. No meat eating? Would meat eating be a sin then? Some one earlier mentioned infertile heterosexual unions. This doesn't fit in well with the Eden picture of God's plan. Maybe nudism is the ideal.

Then there was a comment that "Paul had no knowledge of orientation". Where did that come from? Does it refer to genetics when we say orientation? Are we saying that Paul was incapable of noticing individuals with singular same sex attractions?

Elaine,

Aren't you arguing inconsistencies from the literalistic reading of the bible?

The call for consistency was not for a literalistic text to counter another- but for consistent Biblical Principles that place specific texts in proper frameworks. This is appealing directly to the Biblical strengths of Adventist Progressives!

The arguments put forward in this blog, although passionate are only relevant as regards to whether you believe the bible to be the infallible word of God and whether you believe that your interpretation is right. If you believe your interpretation is correct, then nothing will convince you otherwise. Your opinion is based on your interpretation and is therefore man made (you probably think your interpretation is infallible). Now you may believe that you know what God thinks but just because you believe it, does not make it so.

The fact that someone may be homosexual should be of no consequence to anyone accept those who are affected. We don't commit the same energy to other so called sins. If we did, we would need to have a confession box.

Interpreting the Bible in plain English otherwise it can't be God's word?????? The Bible wasn't written in English and had to be translated but very intelligent and diligent people. A simple faith maybe just that....simple. If you have a simple faith, why bother tackling complicated issues?

Carrol Grady had mentioned problems with pulling up pages. Well I was wondering if there is a way from the Home page to go directly to the last page of comments or does that path always have to go through the first page. Now and again when I click on a comment in the "Recent Comments" my computer will take me directly to that comment. It seems erratic.

Dear Andrew,

"If you believe your interpretation is correct, then nothing will convince you otherwise." Ah, this is NOT an accurate portrayal of the participants here...

We do believe our interpretations are correct- but only to a point. That point is - our accumulated learning up till the present.

Therefore, in order to learn more- this conversation continues with passion and intensity and love- so that all who are engaged may continue to learn/perhaps nuance their present understanding/ perhaps be won over to another point entirely.

So it is not merely a fight of two intransigent sides, and not merely a stage to expound from soapboxes. It is an egalitarian christian playground of ideas with those who want to learn with and from each other for good.

Arlyn

I would like to agree with you, however, the fundamental beliefs which opinions are based on are not what is being challenged; just the opinions which are derived form the initial assumption.
Without tackling the initial assumption, how can one's opinion change?

Sorry Arlyn, that was me who posted the last comment. Forgot to add my name. Not trying to hide or anything.

Dear Andrew,

You mentioned two pivotal points- were those what you meant by "fundamental beliefs?"

1. "whether you believe the bible to be the infallible word of God and

2. whether you believe that your interpretation is right."

I thought a good part of this discussion did revolve around #2 and what the Biblical voice on homosexuality means (interpretation- including the historical context, exegetical definitions, personal application etc.) to different people and why they come to their conclusions.

Hi Arlyn

Isn't the fact that people come to different conclusions, proof that no conclusion should be accepted.

That was me again.

Arlyn's comment: "Aren't you arguing inconsistencies from the literalistic reading of the bible?

"The call for consistency was not for a literalistic text to counter another- but for consistent Biblical Principles that place specific texts in proper frameworks."

From more than a few posts here, there appears to be many who are reading the Bible literally. Would you not agree? My point of the inconsistencies are applicable only to the literalistic readers.

The Bible was never meant to be read literally, but was a compendium of many writers with varied beliefs; which is why we have so many inconsistencies. Reconciling those has provided thousands of individuals lifetime work.

That the Bible is being read literally, is shown by those who refer to the "perfect plan" in Eden, which no one knows anything about other than what the two different and illusory accounts depict. None of the literature of that time was ever meant to be a factual account but man's view of the world as he knew it.

Ditto for the NT and Paul. They described the depravity of the pagan cultures and warned the new Christians of being a part of it. He does not address homosexual monogamy, to repeat what has already been said here, but the rampant promiscuity, both hetero and homo that was part of the licentiousness of their contemporaries. To transmit the limited texts on this and project it onto homosexual as an inherited factor, reflects eisegesis; differing from our interpretation of women's role (roundly ignored)given at the same time.

Andrews,

The software for this site allows us to revise our own post even after we've sent it, but not someone else's, in case you haven't noticed. Click 'edit'

Now to your post. Does arriving at different conclusions "prove" no conclusion must be accepted? Yes, if they were all false. But supposing one were true? How do we know that? Well, it depends on how the conclusions were reached. We can find this out by inspecting the arguments/evidence that were put forward. Logic is the formal method used to examine the truth or falsehood of an argument.

You mentioned relevance. That's one good informal test. Another test of an informal fallacy is equivocation or ambiguity. I believe Arlyn cited some examples of informal fallacies from wikipedia. (Try testing "Gay theology without apology" for relevance and equivocation/ambiguity.)

Lastly, I want to assure you that knowledge is attainable. The key is learning to distinguish between knowledge and opinion. Here's a website that might help you as it has done for me:

http://radicalacademy.com/adlerknowledge1.htm

Dave;

You said:
“I believe we make progress on any issue when we more accurately understand any one or more of the following: (1) how things ought to be; (2) how things actually are; and (3) what we can do to make the gap between these somewhat smaller.
Thanks!”

I guess your reply is deft and dextrous, but it takes no risks, offers no guidance. All you said (in essence) is that we need to work to make things as they ought to be. Really? (That’d be like a football coach telling his team they will win if they score more points than their opponent.) In practical terms, all this means is the other guys need to come over to MY rational position on this.

To illustrate: may I characterize your position on this issue (seeking to accurately understand how YOU think things “ought to be”) as “we ought to accept the openly practicing gay couple into full church fellowship with no questions asked”? (or something like that) Then, in further pursuit of “accurately understanding” “how things ought to be” we could ask someone else from a bit different perspective the same question. And he/she might say; “openly gay behavior is clearly outside of God’s plan and defies His created design. We must in no way condone that aspect.” (or something like that)

In essence we have two different opinions of how things “ought to be.” And lets agree many/most of us have been working on this for a long time. So we are precisely where we started. No? Now do we just stand (sit?) and argue (well, you know, discuss) whose version of what “ought to be” is better? For that’s exactly how these conversations usually evolve I’ve noticed. I think you’re avoiding the hard and unpleasant implications of my question. For some, (many?) progress would BE to “not let this sin be welcome or accepted in the church” (or something like that) while for others, progress would BE the open acceptance of gays and whatever behaviors they feel entitled to engage in. Two views of what “ought to be”, no disagreement that we’re not “there” yet, so obviously the way to get to where we “ought to be” is for YOU, or ME (or him over there) to change and come to MY “side”. That’s the blunt reality.

Why not just accept the strong possibility that this issue may well divide our church in two? A great many won’t like it, but substantial numbers -- on both sides! -- will think it’s best.

This is the elephant in the corner that almost no one wants to talk about; splitting up. Each side could -- and would -- lay the fault at the feet of those on the “other” side. For, after all, WE were most serious, and reasonable, and “open” to discussion, and on and on. But “they” were just so stubborn. Not “open” to new ideas. Unwilling to grow. Sigh. And all could claim they felt really bad, and sad about the entire matter. It didn’t have to “be this way”. So it’d simply be like adding another denomination. How far is one willing to go to keep this from happening? Willing enough that he will drop the subject? Willing enough that he would reluctantly agree to accept openly practicing gays?

Perhaps, Dave, I have missed some nuance you intended. But I’m sure we both agree that the discussion, at some point, will cease. That is, every single angle will have been examined, and persons will still occupy all portions of the “spectrum.” And lets just guess/assume that the reason people feel strongly about it NOW is that they believe they already HAVE gone through the process of query. A) how will you know that time has arrived and B) what shall be done when it does? and C) will this be simply another discussion (??like women’s ordination??) that will drag on forever?

(I hope you see my questions as somehow trying to drag the conversation forward; and not just adding yet another circle.)

Hi Joselito

Thanks for the information on the software, I will try to remember it.

"Does arriving at different conclusions "prove" no conclusion must be accepted? Yes, if they were all false. But supposing one were true? How do we know that? Well, it depends on how the conclusions were reached. We can find this out by inspecting the arguments/evidence that were put forward. Logic is the formal method used to examine the truth or falsehood of an argument".

This is a circular argument as the conclusions are as a result of the arguments and evidence. Logic surely concludes, no conclusion is possible.

Andrews,

A conclusion must be drawn from premises. Premises consist of propositions. What conclusion/s did you find in the "Gay theology without apology" post? How did he arrive at his conclusion/s? What pieces of evidence/arguments/premises/propositions did he draw his conclusion from?

I recommended Mortimer J. Adler's website. He also wrote "How to read a book". We may criticize an author (or someone we are engaged in conversation), he said; and disagree with him but let's do it neither 1) contentiously, nor (2) hopelessly.

Sabbath blessings!

Bob

I worked really hard on a post that addressed your earlier one about the Eden example. It was, alas, full of brilliance and stunning logic but it is now floating around in internet space somewhere so you'll have to take my word for it :) (That's a joke which I feel compelled to point out since I'm new here.) Maybe in all that brilliance I couldn't type the little test at the end right. I will comment that what you said does help me understand better why you would consider it a sin - thank you.

I visited the website link about black pastors. This is one thing that I really just don't get. The argument that homosexuality is somehow threatening to families and communities. The problems facing Black families and communities are very real and the need for churches to take a stand for commitment, responsibility, and restraint is vital. These are virtues that are necessary not just for heterosexual families but for homosexual. Homosexuality has become synonymous with hedonism and there are individuals and activists who perpetuate that stereotype, no doubt. We should hold gays to the same standards as we do straight people. Whenever I read arguments like this website though, I feel like there is some secret code that others understand, "Oh yes homosexuality threatens families so we have to fight it," and I'm left scratching my head and whining, "I don't get it? What's the connection?"

I really liked your latest post about the future of the conversation. I could be wrong but I think progressive Adventists are in the distinct minority. Most members of the church, outside of major centers, are not struggling with homosexuality because the issue is already clear to them. Maybe in a few years, but look how far out of the mainstream the church is on women's ordination and it has held over that - an issue that many more were and are conflicted over.

Beth:

So, that would make, to date, at least two perspectives that you simply “do not get”; those conservatives here (what handle would you prefer for this group?) and that of Black Pastors. Perhaps this will help you empathize with me; who “does not get” your position.

The point, as I hear these Black pastors, is that “society” no longer regards traditional marriage as sacred, or binding, or much of anything at all, let alone binding or normative. For a very large number of Black men in their influence, they take this as affirming their OWN disregard for societal norms and social/parental responsibilities, with resultant deepening of their OWN subcultures deterioration! No sociologist alive denies the studied association of poverty with a) youth, b) unwed c) uneducated d) illegitimacy. Yet these are the precise things which result from societal collapse of traditional marriage! And lead specifically to poverty.

The implications are too numerous and obvious for me to assume you cannot make some connections of your own. Don’t take this personally, but I pity you for not being able to “make the connection”. Sorry for my bluntness. Many many are living that connection right now. Of them you may be oblivious. (I expect to get slammed for this post as insensitive, horrid, bigoted, homophobic, maybe even racist; by the very ones who insist that poverty is their main enemy. If so, talk about hutzpah)

Here's my optimistic counter (for what it's worth) to Bob's pessimistic predictions about church division...

Adventist Progressives have convinced NAD at least that women's ordination is not a sin, and is a valid option for the church. Even most of the Theologians at the seminary believe this. Score one! for Biblical Principles elucidated well enough to take Paul's specific church advice in stride without demeaning him and his pastoral concerns, while moving past him into modern society and how God could work now.

We are waiting as a patient sister for our siblings to catch up and be convicted in their own minds on this issue, because we want to move forward as a whole worldchurch family. It is not a dead issue, it has not divided the church (though some impatient people have made independent choices), it will prevail shortly. The groundwork has been laid well.

Christians have done the same thing with polygamy and slavery in the past. Score two and three!

No need to get nasty and despair of the church accepting active homosexuals as members. Save the emotional outrage for those who deserve it, reserve your energy to score again through reasoned Biblically based principles on sexuality.

Sloppy appeals to outcasts and unacceptables are tangential to the subject- church never advocated rejection of humans.

Don't depend mainly on societal, medical, psychological views. This is a CHURCH you are trying to change, it follows the Bible as its authority-

help its interpretation mature.

God bless.

Dear Andrew,

You wrote "Isn't the fact that people come to different conclusions, proof that no conclusion should be accepted?"

No.

It can mean that both conclusions have yet to be resolved (and incorporated without losing their unique perspectives) into a bigger paradigm.

That is what I am waiting for on this homosexuality issue.

My friend again copied the latest posts and sent them to me. I have tried every possible way to reach these pages, including registering again, so I don't know what the problem is.

True, Bob, you are very, very blunt, as opposed to insensitive, horrid, bigoted, homophobic or racist. I'm not sure what Beth had in mind, but personally, I don't understand how the breakdown of heterosexual marriage can be laid at the door of homosexuality. Homosexuals *want* to have committed marriages.

Yes, I said, "I would like to see the biblical reference that condemns a monogamous, committed relationship between two people of a homosexual orientation." I read the biblical references to condemnation of same-sex behavior as referring to certain specific kinds and circumstances. Certain kinds of heterosexual behavior are also condemned, but this does not mean the whole category of heteosexual behavior is condemned. Do I think the Bible approves of faithful gay relationships? No, because all I've read about that period of history, indicates that while recognizing that there were actual loving relationships between two men, it was believed that they were acting in a way foreign to their true natures. In other words, they believed that it was natural for everyone to be attracted to the opposite sex, and those who had same-sex relations were acting "against nature." It was not until the late 18th century that the understanding of sexual orientation came about.

Bob

Once again my post has disappeared so I'll try again. I'm really sorry if I gave the impression that I don't "get" the more conservative viewpoint. Saying I don't get it can sound like code for "I think it is illogical," and I really don't feel that way. I have tried to say that, while I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, I do understand that it is a complex issue and the more conservative viewpoint is not illogical or incomprehensible. Again I'm sorry if I sounded that arrogant.

As for the Black pastors, I think we are agreeing on much here. I agree that lack of commitment and self-restraint (as reflected in a low regard for marriage) contribute to societal breakdown. I am a big fan of marriage and I think it is vital for societal well-being. I agree that all of the things you listed are a big part of poverty and I would pity myself if I couldn't see the connection! Where the disconnect comes in is trying to see how gay marriage fits into this. I don't understand the message they seem to be saying which is, "Society is suffering due to lack of regard for marriage so let's spend a bunch of resources making sure gays don't get to do what we are trying so hard to do." Would making marriage legal for gays increase the number of straight people saying they didn't want to commit? If so, then there would be a connection and I would stand corrected.

After rereading your other post it sounds like this is a topic that has been discussed before on the blog. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the time and effort that everyone has put into the discussion and, while it may be tiring and circular, it has been helpful for me. Happy Sabbath

Hi Arlyn and Joselito

Joselito,I certainly don't need anyone to teach me how to read a book. I am far too cynical to adhere to any person's agenda. I am also of the opinion that I know how to read. With regards to "Gay theology without apology" I haven't read it. But my previous point still remains valid. I have no opinion on the matter of homosexuality. The argument against believing homosexuality being wrong is not that it is right, it is the fact that it just "is" and defining it as wrong or right adds no value and only betrays a person's own prejudice.

Arlyn, the bigger paradigm has to encompass both views??? Isn't the outcome simply no view? Not sure how this paradigm exists in reality, but that could be my feeble understanding. Perhaps you could expand on this idea.

Beth said:
"Society is suffering due to lack of regard for marriage so let's spend a bunch of resources making sure gays don't get to do what we are trying so hard to do." Would making marriage legal for gays increase the number of straight people saying they didn't want to commit?

Nobody was "spending" any resources whatsoever even 10 years ago to "prevent" gay marriage. It was unthinkable then even as it had been for millennia before then. It was simply a non-issue.

Then a few courts decided that marriage was a right, and a big push for gay marriage began...

For the third time here I have to point out that this notion that "all of a sudden" Christians decided to "attack the gays" is untrue (whatever else may have been true before).

Anyway, if traditional marriage is falling apart, gay marriage is not going to be the fix.

"The issue is simply should anyone living in open sin: be granted formal church membership? My position is no."

On and on goes the discussion but who has been convinced of accepting a stance he did not hold previously? The Bible condemns the *practice* of homosexuality and rightly does the SDA church. Other than the oft repeated admonition to love the sinner what else is there except verbal legerdemain?

Bill Cork

Why didn't you ask for one Scriptural reference supporting a monogamous homosexual marraige? Seems so out of form for your clear analytical mind.

Tom

Dear Andrew,

It is my feeble understanding that occasionally, as in science two conclusions that seem diametrically opposed and yet hold some validity were eventually resolved when a larger paradigm was proposed. i.e. wave/particle-both in different states.

In theology this also has happened before. Do I have the paradigm? no. I have not heard it elucidated yet by my colleagues here, either. But I am hopeful and willing to grope toward it.

Of course, your stance of it being neutral- is a rational option. But I think that is best arrived at as a default option after giving up any effort to reconcile the final conclusions. (you may be ahead of me here.)

(Actually, I am neutral about homosexuality as a topic, outside of religion who cares about another's taste? I really care about the process that christians take to change their understanding of truth, for that affects much more than just this topic.)

"Your Friend"

You say "The Bible condemns the *practice* of homosexuality" That is your interpretation. Even seemingly obvious texts which you gain an opinion on require your interpretation. Presumably you believe handicapped people (Lev 21:16-23)should not be allowed near the sanctuary (funny, it doesn't mention homosexuals) or stubborn children should be stoned to death (Duet 21:18-21. What about slavery, genocide and incest. Selling your daughter to pay a debt????

Ok, so you think you how and what to interpret from the Bible and then to judge others on. Throw out 21st century accumulated knowledge and experience and regress some 3000 years to when clearly these were a superior race full of great ideas and knowledge. When reading Lev 21:20, assuming you are male, I hope you have good testicles!

Hi Arlyn
Interesting answer. On the paradigm I assume you are correct, although I don't really understand how. Perhaps I should have faith.

Being neutral whether in religion or outside seems to be the best option. Everyone sins it seems from a theistic stance, so no one should hold office or be allowed to become a member. Perhaps some sins preclude whilst others are ok? Who chooses? Doesn't seem consistent to me.

Your last paragraph really interests me though. Christianity has changed its notions over time. Certain religions are going through this process more so. The Anglican church on this very topic is going through a dramatic process. At least there are some areas where “Gay” people can go without being patronised.

Someone said: "personally, I don't understand how the breakdown of heterosexual marriage can be laid at the door of homosexuality. Homosexuals *want* to have committed marriages."

The fundamental Christians have consistently used this argument that traditional marriages will be threatened if there are gay marriages. Can someone please explain how this could possibly be? That a homosexual couple live next door (my granddaughter's neighbors) could POSSIBLY threaten her and her husband's marriage sounds ludicrous. Is there some reason I'm missing?

The other rationale used for people in the church who are practicing "known sin" is no different than a few years back when divorced and remarried people were considered by the church to also be living in "known sin." The times they are a'changin' and the church WILL change, either sooner or later. In the meanwhile, they are losing talented young people who walk away knowing that if their "secret" is known, they wil shunned or ostracized; maybe not by your church, but there are plenty of very conservative churches where this will occur.

Arlyn:

I appreciate your comments that:
“...two conclusions that seem diametrically opposed and yet hold some validity were eventually resolved when a larger paradigm was proposed. i.e. wave/particle-both in different states.
In theology this also has happened before. Do I have the paradigm? no. I have not heard it elucidated yet by my colleagues here, either. But I am hopeful and willing to grope toward it.”

Not to draw attention to myself, but I attempted to formulate just such a paradigm some many dozens of posts ago. I do understand that it may have been uncommented on because it was found to be incoherent, or irrelevant, or unworkable, or maybe even just plain stupid. But, as far as I can tell, it is the only attempt to form a paradigm which does not rely on forcing the other to accept my (or their) interpretation of those “trouble texts”.

I’d be grateful if you could tell me if this holds water for you, or why it doesn’t…

Here goes:

Our fellow gay (active) church members fondest wish is to be accepted as they are, for who they are, even if they actively practice.

Let me paint a scenario:
We, the SDA church, does this. On the basis that none are righteous (no, not one) we accept them. We do this because we understand that they have not yet come under conviction on this matter. We accept because we understand that we ourselves await conviction on matters that yet elude us.

Thus, I patiently wait for conviction (knowing convictions are things we have for ourselves; not for others) of my openly gay (ie sexually active) fellow church members just as they patiently wait for God to convict ME of the arrogance, boastfulness, greed, strife, deceit, malice, and insolence (these are words/descriptions lifted directly from Romans 1) within me of which I have not yet been convicted.

For, a proper reading of Romans 1 (a la Hays, from my perspective) demands that we all are in the same boat; we are all “on the list” (of Romans 1); and are all deeply engaged in the process of being changed into the likeness of Christ. (That’d be 2 Cor 3:18 -- paraphrased by EGW as “by beholding, we become changed” -- which sounds to me like an ongoing process)

We live and worship together as community and we practice the kindness of God that LEADS to repentance. (that’s Rom 2 v 5)

I worship with, as I’m sure many of us do, those who deny Ellen White, those who disparage the sanctuary doctrine, those who disagree with Atonement as SDA’s teach it, those who fully embrace evolution as they see science teaches it, and on and on. Why not be able to do this with those who hold very different views on homosexuality?

Imagine this with me: we, with our current wisdom and sensible theology and ethics go back in time +/- 2000 years or so. And we find ourselves in positions of some influence. And all around us is slavery and polygamy and and misogyny and other things which totally appall us. God has asked us to go worship with them, grow with them, experience community with them. How far would we get if our first acts were to take away these clearly horrid things from their lives? Yet this is exactly the essence of what God did throughout the Bible isn’t it? The fact that He acted and loved and moved within a people who were doing things of which He clearly disapproved can be a model for us -- may it not? Same dynamic when Jesus spoke on marriage and the folks protested “Hey! that’s not what MOSES said!” and Jesus replies “yeah dudes; but that’s because of YOUR hard hearts! God embraced your hard hearts -- but not all their practices and beliefs!” Could we model that without even arguing which side is “right”??? We’ve imagined (or are told) that accepting someone means we also agree with them; clearly not the case.

Finally, the true definition of church, as you’ve noted, has little to do with denominations; those are distinctions of our OWN devising. I think, as per John 10:16, that Christ knows His bride and it is Church -- big “C”.

Of course this paradigm is imperfect/incomplete and does not come close to knowing what to do with, say, 1 Cor 5:5. What say you Arlyn??

Thank you Cliff,
You make an intelligent, reasoned argument, one which those who seek to "re-interpret" what seems to be clearly stated in God's Word refuse to consider.
I too have great empathy for those who have same-sex attractions.
I went to an It Is Written presentaton several years ago and the main speaker was a gay man (if you can believe that!) who after many years in a committed same-sex relationship had come to the conclusion that the Bible did, indeed, condemn the practice of homosexuality. As a result he had chosen to be celibate.
I was stunned. I had never thought of it in those terms, that to accept what the Bible teaches meant, for him, that he would be celibate. That day changed my perception on this topic in a profound way. To think that, for this man, faithfulness to God meant going through life alone touched my heart in way that few things ever have.
In spite of this I am still convinced that the Bible says what it says and I couldn't care less what the so-called "progressives" and the "politically correct police" think about it.
Throughout this thread anyone who suggests that homosexuality is sin is called every vile thing that those who disagree can muster up. It never ceases to amaze me how those who call for "love, love, love" show nothing but hate and contempt for those who disagree with them and somehow is OK for them to do it! This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
My question is this, "Who really hates?" Do I hate a gay person for wanting them to know the truth of what Scripture teaches, or is that a demonstration of real love on my part because I don't want to see them lose out on eternal life?
As far as I'm concerned those who really hate are the ones who condone that which God has condemned and teach others so to their eternal destruction.
Before you demonstrate your hatred toward those with whom you disagree perhaps you should try to understand their REAL motives!
I am amazed at those who arrogantly and repeatedly say that you can't love the sinner and hate the sin. How do you know what is in my heart? Sorry to disagree with you but the fact is that I love ALL people equally! How dare you suppose to know my thoughts and say I don't. Get over yourself.
Are there bigoted hate-mongers who oppose homosexuality simply because of their narrow-mindedness? Of course! But no more so than those who practice the very same bigoted hate-mongering against those who oppose homosexuality from a position of a true loving concern for a gay or lebians' eternal life.
I have honestly NEVER seen more hate-filled invective in any discussions anywhere to rival that spewed forth by those who disagree with a Biblically conservative position on this topic.
Please,...love and understanding goes both ways. If you want me to consider the possibility that I may be wrong then perhaps you ought to be able to practice what you preach.

Elaine wrote:"The fundamental Christians have consistently used this argument that traditional marriages will be threatened if there are gay marriages. Can someone please explain how this could possibly be? That a homosexual couple live next door (my granddaughter's neighbors) could POSSIBLY threaten her and her husband's marriage sounds ludicrous. Is there some reason I'm missing?"
Yes, Elaine, you are missing something fundamental to the whole discussion and you have set up the same straw man that so many pro advocates use.
Please, can you give me an example of ANYONE who suggests that homosexual marriage will affect ALREADY EXISTING marriages?
That isn't the argument!
The argument is that if we reduce marriage to any pairing, or group, of people, then marriage lose its sacredness and SUBSEQUENT generations will view it as nothing more than a victorian oddity with no real value.
This has already begun to happen in the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, including my own country of Canada.
Like it or not marriage (between one man and one woman) and the family are the foundation of any successful functioning society and ALWAYS has been.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Why has same-sex marriage NEVER been accepted before, even in societies like ancient Greece where homosexuality was considered normative?
Because, they recognized the vital role that marriage and the family played, that's why. This social engineering experiment is going to have devastating affects but those who have pushed for it will find someone else to blame when that reality finally hits home. They always do.

Anonymous, surely you must have missed the reasoning given by some well-known Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. who used the argument that homosexual marriage would threaten the traditional marriage? So, it is an argument that has been used.

Your mention of Greece where once homosexuality was normative, is correct. However, they still practiced and preserve the family and marriage even while practicing "man-boy love" which WAS normative among those higher on the food chain. This was often practiced by married men.

Traditional marriage is NOT going away, our normal hormones have not been eradicated and should not be a worry. When all males no longer ar attracted to female and vice versa, then we can being to worry.

"Social engineering" is a term often used but is very ambiguous and used for a multitude of ideologies which appear to some to be destructive for life as we know it. Wasn't equality of opportunity and education for women (and blacks) once considered to be "social engineering," drasticalloy changing the prevailing patriarchial white culture for most of this world's history? We all know the dire effects of it, don't we? :-) Depending on one's sex, race or viewpoint that was either a disaster or a wonderful change in societal traditions.

Isn't it about time we started a new thread on adultery, a sin that Jesus did mention, while he never said a word about homosexuality. Haven't we about beat that horse dead by now?

In John 5:32 he said: "...whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Does anyone know of such "sinners" within the congregation now attended? Should they be members while "living in sin"?

Elaine wrote:
"Anonymous, surely you must have missed the reasoning given by some well-known Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. who used the argument that homosexual marriage would threaten the traditional marriage?"
Elaine, I answered that question. Those arguments are not referring to *"already established marriages"*. Did I make the distinction clear enough that time?
I asked you to give me even one example of anyone who used the argument that it would destroy already established marriages. Did you miss the distinction I made entirely? It was the whole point of my post. The argument is that it will undermine the importance and sanctity of marriage in *"subsequent generations!"*
You also said,
"Traditional marriage is NOT going away, our normal hormones have not been eradicated and should not be a worry. When all males no longer ar attracted to female and vice versa, then we can being to worry."
Did you not read anything I wrote or do you just want to keep setting up your little straw men because you really don't have any valid support for your position other than your own opinion?
Here is what I said, please read it:
"The argument is that if we reduce marriage to any pairing, or group, of people, then marriage lose its sacredness and SUBSEQUENT generations will view it as nothing more than a victorian oddity with no real value."
That is what they are talking about when they say it will threaten traditional marriage! How can you miss such a simple and obvious point?
And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't ancient Greece self-destruct (just like modern America is on the verge of doing)? That is the point! Where are we going to draw the line? You may say that pedophilia goes over the line but the very existence of groups such as NAMBLA (since you mentioned man-boy love) shows that not all agree. So, if your reasoning is valid then who decides where we draw the line? You, me NAMBLA, cannibals, serial killers? Who?
Let me make abundantly clear that I do NOT believe that gays and lesbians should be discriminated against. The issue with gay membership in the church is a Biblical one, not a discriminatory one. I wonder how many times I would find the "he's doing that and no one says anything so why can't I do this" argument if I went throught these threads.
Is that really where we want to go? There are many things that the church is too gutless to address, that doesn't make it right. When one has to rely on the "he's doing it and getting away with it" argument it shows how weak their position really is.

Hello anonymous

"There are many things that the church is too gutless to address"....

Interesting phrase considering your anonymity.

I think you are being disingenuous to Elaine. Your argument with regards to a threat to traditional marriage is simply not convincing and non verifiable.

You are wrong; Elaine certainly does have support for her position, I am one of them, by definition you are wrong.

You think Greece self destructed because of homosexuality???? And that is the way modern America is going? The first is simply not true and the latter pure nonsense.

Who draws the line? I pray it won't be you. Secular society is far more tolerant and civilised than religious societies so I would see how they do it. I live in one and am happy to say it seems to work fine.

....And the use of the bible to reinforce your own views and judge others...tut tut, very naughty.

The fact that you feel the need to make itabundantly clear that you do not support discrimination against gays and lesbians (I thought lesbians were gay)suggests in fact the opposite is true.

1. This question pops up in every blog on homosexuality, so I'll address it again.

"Why has same-sex marriage NEVER been accepted before, even in societies like ancient Greece where homosexuality was considered normative?"

It's true that same sex marriages did not legally exist in ancient times that we know of. But as for egalitarian, long term relationships between gay men with complete weddings- that did exist. It's close, though not the same.

excerpt-

"Classical Studies Newsletter, Volume X, Winter 2004
Roman Same-Sex Weddings from the Legal Perspective
By Prof. Bruce W. Frier

On occasion during the early Roman Empire, pairs of Roman men are described as having undergone complete traditional marriage ceremonies: weddings with all the trimmings, so to speak. The sources that mention such weddings are few, difficult to interpret, and invariably hostile. But they are also highly detailed, to such an extent that we can be confident this was a true social institution, not just an isolated or aberrational occurrence.

These sources, although long known, have only recently attracted much attention, in large part, obviously, because of the modern debate about same-sex marriage. The Roman sources on marriage between males are, by general agreement, among the best evidence we now possess for the emergence of long-term, egalitarian homosexual relationships (consensual unions between adults)."

Maybe Paul WAS aware of these- it happened during his lifetime.

2. Dear Bob,

I appreciate your universalist approach to even church membership. That would be a sociological paradigm big enough to allow for active homosexual membership- and membership for every other kind of behavior we currently call sin too. But while there are churches that are set up for this kind of open membership. We aren't at the present, instead we are one of the more stringent. To do it- a sociological shift in what membership means would have to happen. (Again, cause for hope- a sociological shift in what ordination means is happening, so you may get your wish on membership definitions too.)

But what I was yearning for was- a theological hermeneutical construct that is convincing.

As a sidelight, I find it amusing that Spectrum has more and more pieces written by ex-SDAs (by membership) that claim identity as Seventh-Day Adventist by sociological bonds and do not see institutional recognition as necessary to do so. Julius Nam even goes as far as to label ex-Adventists who don't even want that, as SDAs in his view. (Is that like getting a hug from an aunt you can't stand? hee hee!)

Anonymous, I have never heard the argument that "if we reduce marriage to any pairing, or group, of people, then marriage lose its sacredness and SUBSEQUENT generations will view it as nothing more than a victorian oddity with no real value," although that's not to say it hasn't been made by someone beside you. But I *would* suggest that the behavior of heterosexuals has probably done enough to devalue marriage in the eyes of the coming generations, without any help from homosexuals. And I would also challenge your "any pairing or group of people" as a "slippery slope" scare tactic without any foundation.

Arlyn, thank you for the reference about same-sex wedding ceremonies in ancient Rome. Let me restate that these men were understood as having departed from what was natural for them, which is why they were in general disapproved of. On the other hand, pederastic man/boy relationships, with the man often married, were considered acceptable because a free Roman male had the right to sexual access to anyone socially lower than himself.

So drinking coffee is now an acceptable Adventist behavior?
Did anybody catch that little tid bit of information shared earlier?

As a 3rd generation, life-long Adventist Christian, it never ceases to amaze me that what used to be considered sinful behavior and certain theological positions (dress, jewelry, diet, etc.) is now considered "acceptable", "tolerated" and "ok", even among the conservative and leaders of this great SDA movement. How absolutely and utterly hypocritical for those self-righteous "whited sepulchres" to condemn the gay Christians when their "sin" is no more likely to keep them out of heaven as the coffee and wine drinker. Sin is sin, no matter how great or small.

All of these comments in favor of accepting one's gay nature are convincing. However, what do you do when even though the logic of being gay makes sense, but your conscience still won't let up? Do you ignore your conscience and continue to have sex with your significant other? Or do you lead a solitary life but have a clear conscience? Or do you re-educate your conscience, if such a thing is possible, to not feel guilty when you are making love to your significant other of the same sex?

God, are you listening to us? It's pretty tough down here. Please come and turn our nightmares into dreams.

Expecting the Bible, an ancient book, to be the sole source for scientific or medical information is to relinquish our reasoning ability that most Christians accept as God-given.

We no longer go to the Bible for proper instruction on what it then proposed: do we still refuse to eat the fruit of a tree until it is four years old (Lev. 19:23), or the combination of two fibers in our clothing (Deut. 22:11) or the treatment of leprosy, or the uncleanliness of both male and female, and a host of other related instructions ordered by God? Should we use human judgment in critically evaluating ancient statements which are thoroughly discredited by modern science?

Does anyone here feel guilty when ignoring or violating the instructions given above? Why not?

In the time we are now living in, evil is now called good and good is now evil! Any and everything goes; people want smooth things preach unto them. Many do not want to hear the truth, but only what will condone or justify their sin! Those who are in the wrong, and deserving of reproof, there is nothing more pleasing than to receive sympathy and praise. People sin as a choice!! When we do something that God has said that we are not to do, and we know that we are not to do it (say like stealing), then we are guilty of committing sin before God. A person is not born a homosexual, thief, liar etc. We choose to be!! God in his word condemns these sins, so if he condemns them, then how can someone say he/she was born that way; or that they just can't help themselves; or they don't have a choice not to do it. Then what we are doing is blaming God for how we are. Satan has from the fall of man, tempted man to do the opposite of whatever God has said. We are no match for the devil, so for a person to overcome their sin or a temptation it is going to take a complete surrender of our life to Christ, daily prayer and continuous study of God's word. "Thy Word Have I Hid In My Heart, That I Might Not Sin Against Thee." Psalm 119:11 To overcome sin no one can do it on their own the Holy Spirit has to help them. Many people ignore that small inner voice (the Holy Spirit speaking to us) that is telling us that what we are doing is not right; and by continuously not listening to Him, Satan leads us down the path of convincing our own selves that we cannot change or this is how God made me!! Then what tends to happen next is when someone should speak against the sin and reveal what God's word says, not only is the person rejected, but so also is the word of the Lord. Joseph was told "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: For He Shall Save His People From Their Sins." Matt.1:21 Contrary to popular belief we will not be saved in our SINS!!! I pray that we might through the power of Christ overcome every sin that so easily beset us!!!

For someone who "knows the homosexual agenda" was your mind already convinced, or did studying an agenda add anything new?

Their "agenda" means nothing. How many homosexuals have you known, personally? I have, and they have absolutely no agenda other than to live and let live.

The question should be asked (since it colors everything about one's perception): when did you, a heterosexual decide that you preferred the opposite sex? Was it a choice? How old were you when you made that life-time decision?

Unless you can answer such a question, you are full of condemnation for anyone who is not "just like you." If there is no ability to understand people who are different, but ostracize and condemn, you, sir, have an agenda!

People are not defined by other's opinions, but but their own birth, just as you were: the genes you inerited, the orientation were not a free choice, were they? How, then, can you condemn someone who also did not have a choice in these factors that were decided long before birth?

You have decided to label as "sins" conditions of birth, just as the Jews did: Did he or his parents sin by having a crippled son? Is that not a fallacy? Also, wasn't it Jesus who said "He without sin, let him cast the first stone"? Both homo and heterosexuality when promiscuous are spoken against in Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible about one's inborn gender orientation. Using the Bible as a brickbat is a surefire way to promote agnosticism. The desire to purify the church by declaring all sins should not be allowed for church membership, is to have a very clean, empty church.

"Most developed their "same sex" attraction sometime between 10-16."

Which is the age (junior high) when you "discovered" your attraction to a female and the age when a young person begins discovering his or her sexuality. A great many homosexuals
say that they have always known they were "different" and were not attracted to the usual toys, games, and friends as their heterosexual counterparts.

To claim that any group's goal "is to destroy the basic ethical and moral principles of both our nation and of the Christian church" is to paint with a very wide brush. Their desire to affirm a monogamous, legally recognized marriage, just as do heterosexuals, should be praised, as it demonstrates that, just as do heteros, the wish to live a monogamous life with the same benefits that marriage now offers. It is difficult to understand why this would be harmful or threaten anyone's marriage. Why are heteros so opposed? How are they harmed?

Because you have studied much on this subject, perhaps you will share the results of the programs that have claimed to reverse, or remove the onus of homosexuality. Many programs have made claims, but to date, the studies showing their success rate has never been published.

If there were a program to change heterosexuals, how successful would it be? If, as most findings have shown that homosexuality is seen throughout the animal kingdom, and is as old as recorded history, for someone to "choose" something that would cause them to be rejected, ostracized, and even murdered, is not believable.

Thank You Dr. Stone.

Tom

Dr. Stone,

How would you like all heterosexuals to be classed with Britany Spears, Madonna or Paris Hilton, to name a few well-known heterosexually promiscuous people? Of course, there are both homosexual and heterosexual who commit sexual sins, but we don't generalize that they are all in that category.

Interesting that none of your DOZENS of gay patients have said they were gay from birth. Of the HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian people I have known through my ministry, most of them state that they knew they were "different" since they could remember, and at puberty, when they began feeling sexual attraction, it was to the same sex and NOT to the opposite sex.

As for the so-called "change" programs they make many CLAIMS but have no peer-reviewed studies to back them up. I have known many, including my own son, who have spent YEARS and thousands of dollars in a futile attempt to change their orientation. They may be helped to repress their natural feelings and even marry, but these marriages are seldom happy for long and often do not last. Trying to live as something you are not is a dishonest and unhealthful way to live, and straight spouses and children suffer in varying degrees as well.

Finally, there is an abundance of research indicating that brains of fetuses that are subject to fluctuations in fetal sex hormones at a crucial period of development may be insufficiently masculinized (in the case of male fetuses) or over-masculinized (in the case of female fetuses).

Carrol

There are homosexuals and there is the homosexual agenda.

It is not limited to but does included the following:

1. Recruitment.
2. Political Activism, to change the religious and civil definition of marriage.
3. To paint opponents as vindictive, graceless, Neanderhals.
4. Shock the "prudes" out of their defined "self-righteousness".

There are of course heterosexuals and the heterosexual agenda, which among other things opposes the above and more.

Both sides have used tactics and methods unseemly to a Christian or even civil ethic.

The current problem is the number of cleric writing broadsides
attempting to "normalize" homosexual conduct and an equal number attempting to demonize homosexuality.

One does one's argument no good to attempt to equalize sin.

I don't think the good Doctor was making a case for any kind of self indulgence.

Let us call sin by its right name and Jesus Christ by His regal name: Lord and Master and bring all sin to Him for cleansing. Tom

Tom, you said:

"There are homosexuals and there is the homosexual agenda.

It is not limited to but does included the following:

1. Recruitment.
2. Political Activism, to change the religious and civil definition of marriage.
3. To paint opponents as vindictive, graceless, Neanderhals.
4. Shock the "prudes" out of their defined "self-righteousness".

While there may be "recruitment" for adding homosexuals to the numbers, it is almost impossible to recruit another person to a totally different orientation. Would you, or anyone you know be influenced by a recruiter to become homosexual? That is what you are saying, isn't it?

As to political activism, both pro and op positions were demonstrated recently in California; and one of the major opponents was the Mormon church. So, is it right for them to take a position and wrong for those who oppose it, as I and many other Christians, even SDAs have done?

Bigotry is essentially intolerance. Is that a Christian virtue for which anyone should be proud? Bigotry can be expressed in many ways and toward any person or group of people that do not conform to an idealized state, whether by color, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation: IOW, not the norms of a limited view of society. It is quite often demonstrated by those who have been living in a more "closed" society, whether racially, religiously, or ethnicity.

To be tolerant of others does not mean that it is condoned or desired for one's self, but it is simply following the Golden Rule: "Do not do to others what you would not wished done to you."
Following that rule, there should be no intolerance.

Since the "homosexual agenda" has been referenced, what is the "heterosexual agenda"?
Do heterosexuals "recruit"?

"Bigotry is essentially intolerance."
~Elaine~

By your definition, God would/will be a bigot. At some point he wont "tolerate" things anymore and he will come.

What excuse will you offer then? He obviously wont take everyone and by not, he will be discriminating. Is that not your view?

Elaine,

The answer your question is NO but that is not because they didn't try! Regarding the second question: Heterosexuals certainly argue to a change in life style to homosexuals--recruitment or no.

Private lives are none of my business. But when the issue become one of political and theological debate, then each voter and each church member has a stake in the debate.

So far, as I can determine, the homosexual agenda is winning.
California was merely a set-back, that I think will come to haunt the straight activists.

I simply believe that the good Doctor has an educated and observational opinion with substance to support his views.
That in no way suggests his views with prevail.

I am one hundred percent in favor of each citizen's civil rights--of association and property. Membership in any sequestered group or organization is subject to the by-laws and standards published and endorsed by the governing body. Due process for change in those published 'requirement' should also be clear and readily available.

The book that started this thread is an attempt to initiate thinging in the due process change of existing standards--each member person or their constituent has a voice in that process. Since, I am not a member, my view is without standing in such a forum.

Never-the-less, I don't think the proposed change would be in the best interest of the Church. Tom

Tom, I appreciate your perspective. The thing that I find troubling is that most of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the Bible, which is a religious belief.

Civil laws should not be influenced by religion as that is contrary to the separation of church and state. Religious people are free to express their opinions, to vote those, but at what point can the religious belief and civil laws agree, or is it impossible? To base one's position on civil laws based on the Bible has no part in the U.S. Why should anyone wish to control another person's private behavior which does not affect him in any way? This was settled years ago when there were people who object to interracial marriage. Marriage is a private arrangement between two people and it should always be decided only by the two involved.

You and I may agree that alcohol consumption does not agree with our particular religious beliefs. However, to impose those beliefs on people who may differ, whose should prevail? The current state laws forces no one to use liquor; a state law allowing gay marriage forces no one to marry someone of the same sex.

Our thinking about alcohol should not be enforced by the law, should it? If not, why should our perspectives of homosexuals be enforced on those with not religion, or with those whose conscientious beliefs, religious or otherwise?

Prohibition was a "great experiement" inviting its being illegally distilled and consumed. Prohibiting gay marriage will not prevent anyone from cohabiting, either. The legalization of the liquor industry: minors prohibited, licensed by the state, etc., are proper government restrictions.

Marriage is also licensed by the state, as well as performed by state individuals such as judges, and even clergy. Provisions for monogamy for heterosexuals as been an effective deterrent to unbridled promiscuity, which even Paul recognized. Allowing gay monogamy removes the epithet of the "gay lifestyle" when it is state-supported, it offers recognition and allows those who favor stable relationships to be afforded state privileges, privileges that "domestic partners" do not currently have.

More education is a deterrent to both bigotry and intolerance. The most bigoted people I ever encountered were those who had little or no personal relationships with the "other" be they blacks, Muslims, or Jews.

A recent Oprah program showed actors playing bigoted people. One was a convenience store clerk who refused to wait on a Muslim-looking woman (wearing a head scarf). He berated her for hours (both were actors) as customers came and even chimed in his refusal to sell her anything because she was a "terrorist." Of all the men who agreed with him, or that were silent, the only people speaking up for the "Muslim" were other women! This was also shown in several other instances of bullying, domestic abuse in the open. In every instance of 4-5 scenes, women spoke up for tolerance, justice and tried to prevent the violence and demand justices than the men. Go figure!

Michael commented on my statement:

Bigotry is essentially intolerance.
~Elaine~

"By your definition, God would/will be a bigot. At some point he wont "tolerate" things anymore and he will come."

That is your view of God. I refuse to accept a bigoted God as do many because of just such attributes given him, nor would I want to a follower of such a being.

He is the only one who decides, period.

Whys that so suprising? Women are always telling men what they should be doing right Tom? ;)

Just one question, Tom. Have you read the book? All of it? If not, you are not qualified to comment on it.

Carol

If I had read the book, all of it or not, you still wouldn't think I was qualified to comment on it. So why should I tell you one way or the other. I have read enough to understand that the agenda is to take the curse off of the lifestyle and present the person rather than the behavior. The long range goal is to change the attitude of the reader and eventually the attitude of the corporate body. The authors and I agree on the person as a child of God in need of redemption as much as I but not more.

I was commenting on the topic just as you were and are. I don't think "put downs" add to the discussion. We have different viewpoints because we have vastly different life experiences including family, academic and theological studies. In an institution with over 5,000 employees, of which I was senior Affirmative Action Officer--I have considerable experience in the field. In 7 years I was never over turned in my decision by the Board of Regents or the Federal Courts. I have had the very sad experience of watching three colleagues die of AIDS. I have assisted in yard and house mantainance of a dying colleague and neighbor. Because, I support the right of a private organization to create its own standards of admission does not mean that I callus to the individual.

You may not like my viewpoint, but why take an agressive negative personal view of my capacity to comment? I invite you to view my library at your convenience. I must admit that at age 83 a large portion has been given to my three children, The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church, a number of friends, and as a member of the Friends of the Augusta Library, an annual contribution of funds and books.
Tom

"the agenda is to take the curse off of the lifestyle and present the person rather than the behavior."

Why is it Christian behavior to have a curse on anyone or their behavior?

No one has inferred that there should be a curse on the heterosexual lifestyle, which is a natural and normal to them as the heterosexual behavior is completely normal to those of us who are heterosexual. To deny or condemn a behavior which is completely normal to the individual, is abhorrent.

No one has been condemned for choosing the heterosexual "lifestyle" for which they did not choose, but were given at birth; yet homosexuals are treated as having an "abnormal lifestyle." It is abnormal only in the way that left-handed people are not "normal" because they represent approximately 10% of the population, which is the estimated percent of homosexuals. Blue eyes would be considered "abnormal" in many countries, such as middle Africa.

How many married heterosexuals have been condemned for their normal behavior? Or have been cursed because of their lifestyle?

Tom,
You are right about the perspective each one has.
In fact in real life, if your are a lawyer, detective or surgeon you recuse yourself because one is not impartial. One has no objectivity. Emotional people dont make the best decisions.
What situation is more charged or emotional than this one?
And yet the opposit assertion is made as the best person to understand or know the situation.
Decisions made by parents faced with this are as much ones to cope with the facts they have been suprised with as they are of factual perspective.

I have unfortunately witnessed this twice. Son strays away from everything the parents taught and believed in so when push comes to shove the parents are the ones who end up changing. The God given and natural instinct to protect ones children overrides all other concerns.

This is my experience and is not to say it is the same in ALL cases. Nor do I say it is the case with the situation Carrol finds herself in.

Elaine
Forgive me, I don't understand your point. There is a precieved societal curse on open gay lifestyle. The "New BooK" I stated attempts to educate the reader against such a blanket condemnation and in the process bring a new attitude to the corporate body of the Church. I didn't put a curse on anybody. We are all under condemnation to use a different term. I futher implied that one condemnation is a serious as any other. Whether God condemns gay lifestyle is for Him not me to decide. You guessed, it has no appeal to me.

I have made my choice on the issue. I recommend my choice to all able rational male members of the human race. If they choose not, that is their problem and in my mind their loss.

Now for a lighter vein. It seems that the senior monk in an Alpine Abbey found a young monk copying from a old manuscript. The Senior monk examined the old manuscript and found it was not the original. The senior monk admonished the younger that it was poor scholarship to copy a copy. The Senior monk offered to bring the original manuscript. The Senior monk went back into the stacks and eventually found the original. The young monk heard his senior to cry out:" Alas, the word is celebrate. Cheers, Tom

Tom, wasn't it Paul who said it was better to marry than to "burn"? IOW: celibacy or marriage? Faint praise for marriage.
Homosexuals have no such choice?

So they say! Tom

Dr. Stone

I am only aware of the sexual perversions that occur in Georgia State prisons. I have avoided further research in these disgusting practises.

I know of one case in which a harded inmate beat a young lad senseless while others looked on. When the "boy" was lying on the concrete bleeding and senseless, the harded inmate looked up and said. Don't think of it as a man dying. Think of it as a bride being born! Tom

Dr. Stone, when you write, above, 'look at what gays are really like' you are making a very sweeping generalization. You don't say 'some gays' or 'promiscuous gays' you just say - gays. Then you proceed to illustrate this group of people called 'gays' with examples of lurid, obviously revulsive, sexual practices. Please. Give me a break. I can find disgusting examples from subgroups of heterosexuals such as swingers or pedopheliacs. So what does that say about heterosexuals as a whole? Zilch. Not until you can demonstrate that the behavior is an integral and dominant characteristic of the broader group. Good luck there.

Now I share your revulsion for the sorts of practices you indicated. And please, if you post again, spare our readers explicit details. It is unnecessary and could cause the post to get deleted. But, more to the point of this response, if you cannot argue better than this - and I say this not as either a gay supporter or opponent - then your credibility is poor.

Rich

I agree with the lurid details argument. However, the pro-gay activists keep demanding--examples, cases, for examples, etc.
Then when details are provided there is correctly revusion.

The issue should be private, the Gay community has made it public and then cries against lurid details.

I find the life style revolting enough without the details.
It is the current activism that his creating the over the top responsed.

Yes, they are people and should have all the respect and civility of U.S. citizens as well as all the civil rights of citizens. It is the pro-active agenda that seems to bring out the worst of all of us.

Far worse, in my mind is the traffic in child porn, one doesn't have to go to the books of Moses to determine that such activity is debased.

How does one address blatant vulgarity in a none vulgar way--seems the above book made one attempt. Others of us don't think a gloss is the proper approach. Maybe the authors and their consultants should now attempt a tome on incest.

I have refrained from stories by the score of sordid tales of
depraved sexual behavior--which of course are a matter of court records and in my mind should stay there.

But it is equally unfair and uncouth to attempt to dismiss or imply such beastly behavior as normative because it has become so common place and open. The cry "God Made Me Do It" is simply an update of the old comic line "The Devil Made Me Do It."

To paraphrase a common E.G.White comment: rather than an open book the authors should have laid the issue before "the brethren of experience" ie a second Glacier View and see if it flies. Tom

In fairness to Dr Stone, I looked up Craig's list as he suggested and compared the various notices with pics posted by the different subgroups of Women Seeking Men, Men Seeking Men, etc - on the same page so to speak. Do we have there a representative sample, IOW, that may be useful for us to make objective observations on our own and reach a reasonable, justifiable conclusion?

If one goes to the internet sites are "surfs" to find pornography, pedophilia, heterosexual and homosexual pickup sites, displaying their "wares" and more, certainly, they abound.
And in certain areas of any city can be found "johns" street walkers of both sexes.

But to portray this and imply that all gays are like this is no different than implying that all prostitutes and johns are typical of heterosexuals.

There will always be found extremes in society if that is where one chooses to look.

Look into the eyes of your own child: if he or she were gay, would you attitude and reflection be no different? God help your child if your attitude is displayed as above.

This is for Dr Stone and others who may have the time and inclination to read and critique peer-reviewed scientific studies. Let me know what you think.

- Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2006 by Margaret Rosario, Eric W. Schrimshaw, Joyce Hunter, Lisa Braun

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_43/ai_n16107876

Elaine,

I was put in touch with Carrol Grady and other concerned, caring persons for the first time way back through my son, the eldest of 3 children. He was at the time a student at the Eastman School of Music and was encouraged to visit the AAF chapter in NY. Believing he was gay, per information they gathered, they naturally tried their best to be as helpful and as supportive as humanly possible. I shall not mention any more names in order to protect the innocent. And I'll stop right here since my aim is only to let you know where I'm coming from.

In fairness to Dr Stone, I looked up Craig's list as he suggested and compared the various notices with pics posted by the different subgroups of Women Seeking Men, Men Seeking Men, etc - on the same page so to speak. Do we have there a representative sample, IOW, that may be useful for us to make objective observations on our own and reach a reasonable, justifiable conclusion?

Posted by: Joselito Coo | 18 December 2008 at 4:42

At a minimum we should be able to determine what percentage of that population is seeking the type of relationship the proponents here are trying to paint all homosexuals as wanting. The little house with the white picket fence and a dog stuff.
I believe they are discribing a minute segment of a population that is more like we see in the much promoted gay rights parades all around the country where the goal seems to be to rub their lifestyle in the countries faces.

Dr. Stone:

One more (probably last) time. Give me a break.

You wrote 'I gave the "repulsive" details simply to illustrate my point. (I've been on other boards where they were not "afraid" of hearing the TRUTH.)'

Please. Requesting you to refrain from additional explicit detail has absolutely nothing to do with being afraid of truth. How in the world can you defend such an astounding logical leap? It does provide you some apparent 'high moral ground' justification, but only if one accepts such vacuous reasoning.

Then you again make a sweeping generalization: 'Gays are not, in general, like heterosexuals, at least in many sexual practices'.

Aside from the obvious 'plumbing' differences and the easily conceeded point that there is a very devient gay lifestyle that exists, how is it you continue to use the unqualified term 'gays' without any recognition that there is a very significant gay population that does not fit your framework?

This kind of broad-brush condemnation qualifies IMO as bashing.

Question: Does anyone know - do bi-sexuals have a choice in their nature and thus their behavior?
Thank you

Tom, I apologize. I wasn't trying to put you down. But when we are discussing a particular book, it doesn't seem justified to me for someone to make statements about it if they haven't read it.

Dr. Stone, just because two gay men wrote that book doesn't mean that they represent all gay people. I suggest you read _In Search of Gay America_, which gives evidence, albeit some 20 years out of date now, of the normality of most gay and lesbian people, whose lives are as different from the perverted practices you mention, as Christian heterosexuals hopefully are from the Hollywood lifestyle.

Michael, as for parents being too emotional to make good decisions on this issue, doesn't God help us learn about His love through the experience of being parents? Didn't God create our emotions? My son has maintained His connection with God through all the learning experience we went through, and so have many, many other gay and lesbian people I know. I thank God for how He has helped stretch and grow me through this experience.

I'm glad this book was written and believe it will be a very valuable resource ... guess we'll have a chance to see it in a couple of months!

Gerhard Haas,
Bi-sexual orientation is just that, an orientation. It does not determine behavior or practices. Bi-sexual people should be encouraged to enter into monogamous relationships and avoid promiscuity, just as the other orientations are encouraged. Thus, their monogamous bi-sexual behavior might look like they are oriented as a hetero or as a same-gendered person, but they aren't. Just as hetero married women do not forget they attracted to men in general, a married bi-sexual does not forget they are attracted to whichever gender they are not dating/married to. Orientation does not make a person less faithful, though, when they are in a relationship. Faithfulness is a decision everyone has to take ownership of - we choose our behavior.

On a side note: there is a myth that bi-sexual people are by definition more "promiscuous" or "will go after anybody." Bi-sexuals can be just as picky when it comes to who they want to kiss/date/marry as any other orientation. There are picky and unpicky heteros, picky and unpicky homosexuals, and picky and unpicky bi-sexuals.

Ron Stone M.D.,
I read your most recent post and am wondering - which of the four "peculiar" behaviors that you just listed are, in fact, peculiar to same-gender relationships? I believe none of them are limited to same-gender people, in theory or practice. Thus, whether or not you dislike those four practices, they are not a reason in and of themselves to condemn an orientation, be it same-gender or hetero.

It seems to me you are very much against promiscuous sexual behavior. My question is, who isn't? I haven't read any arguments to support promiscuity on this website. You are preaching to the choir. More importantly, whether or not we disagree with promiscuity that occurs in the world or on craig's list, is not a reason to condemn an orientation. If we do condemn an orientation based on what people with that orientation do with it in the world, we would all have to become celibate. [Not that celibacy erases orientation; it doesn't.]

You wrote: "sexually transmitted diseases--also occur among gay men at a rate FIVE to TEN TIMES HIGHER." My question to you is, don't same-gender people start out as virgins just like heteros? Why group virgin same-gender people with experienced ones? Why group monogamous same-gender people with promiscuous ones?

I would think that as an M.D. you would want there to be positive, monogamous, safe, careful role models for same-gender Americans to be able to appreciate, admire, and emulate - if for no other reason than to reduce the spread of STIs.

I could give you reams of anecdotal evidence that is very consistent with Dr. Stone's viewpoint. Like Tom Z, I reached the conclusion that many gays are sociopaths of a sort. Of course there are exceptions. As a young man, I lived with two older men, art dealers, who slept in the same bed so that I could have a bed in which to sleep. Although other friends of mine told me they were gay, it never occurred to me. Frankly, it was irrelevant.

Regardless of our personal experiences, the interpretation of Scripture being advanced by many overlooks an important point. Romans 1 is often dismissed by gay apologists as insignificant in light of modern times. Some words in the NT have traditionally translated by terms offensive to gays. These translations are said to be inaccurate because the meaning of the original Greek words are poorly understood.

Romans 1:24 uses a term translated as "uncleanness" in the KJV and "impurity" in the NASB. It says that God gave the people over to impurity. Verses 26 and 27 then explain that this impurity consisted of women abandoning their natural function and men with men working that which is unseemly.

The word translated as impurity is Strong's #167. Strong's #167 is often spoken of negatively in the NT. It refers not only to homosexual practices described in Romans 1 but heterosexual fornication described in 1 Thess. 1:3-7. It is included in the list of works of the flesh condemned by Paul in Galatians 5:19.

A key piece of evidence condemning homosexuality has been left out of many discussions. The meaning of two obscure Greek terms is only a part of the picture. Classifying homosexuality as an unclean practice includes it in the multiple condemnations of uncleanness in the NT. Romans 1:24-27 definitely classifies homosexuality as unclean.

My Dear,

letrme just enter again, only having had a glance on the recent contributions :

Rom 1 speaks of deliberate actions - homosexual or polymorphous perverse promiscuous actions - in Rome of around 80 a.Ch. With some open eyes you find such also today in the Caribbean holiday resorts or in Mallorca.

Humilation by homosexual rape is found in prisons or in Gen 19 and Judg 19 - anyone having some experience with "genuine" homosexually oriented men would know that you can frighten, embarrass, repel - - them, but not calm them down with offering the virgin daughter or the concubine as a substitute. (so for instance observations at the public swimmingpool in 1954 or the xmas party in my hospital 1985)

Ski world champion Erika Schinegger, raised as a girl, always together with girls since preschool times, good in sports, got in panic within the national girls racing team : The other girls became the more interested in boys while "her" interest arose - in girls !! - and "she" feared to be a lesbian (!). "She" was a genetic male, as medical examinatins finally proved. (Erik Schinegger in a tv interview Jan 17. 2005) Schinegger inbetween has his (!)own family of wife and children.

Please remember your very own development of sexual orientation with honest open eyes, keep Schinegger in mind - and forget the allegation of primary volouptiousness in case of the homosexually oriented.

"Sin" and "Sinner" are not the just categories to be used in discussions when we meet the basic sexual orientation - and the tragedies implied with it, when not according to the maiority - mainstream - usual - natural - biblical - - or whatsoever "norm".

And all we "normals" should be very grateful that we meet the societies expectations and have our little (?) transgressions the society responds to with a little embarrassment - and a twinkle in the eyes, but not with ostracism (or KZ, as the Nazis did !).

Just for the moment, tomorrow I will give time to all the preceeding contributions.

Greetings, blessings, have a quiet and joyful Sabbath all of you ! GSS

gerhard svrcek-seiler

Perhaps you are aware also of the steroid experiments done on East German female athletes prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall?
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?id=19914&section=67

THe story of Heidi Kreiger the East German shot put champ who had sexual reassignment surgury to become a man.

Quite often in these forums we read the defenders asserting that there is no choice in being homosexual.
Here we see documented cases of steroid use changing the physical attributes of a persons body, but if choice were not involved who could one who simply had male features be made to love someone of the opposite sex?
The second way that the proponents of homosexuals try to mainstream their condition is to always include Bisexuals and transgender when speaking as in "GLBT".

This is patently illogical to say they are in anyway the same.
Bisexual in its most simple definition is that a person likes both sexes, so if a woman likes women or men, they can simply find a man and marry them. Its not like the laws allow more than 1 spouse. Of course if the gay community ever get what they want we will see about even that, wont we?

The other one is transgender. Those who have had surgury to have their physical body match their self body image. These are the ones who have the best arguement of a medical or birth related defect which put their physical body and internal self image at odds. THey seek to surgically remedy their body to match their self perception. Since medicine can change the body and not the mental at this point, and the recipients are pleased with the results, that is fine and good.

There is work being done as we speak on the interaction and effect of hormone levels in homosexuals.
If steroid use can lead to changing the attraction from one sex to another as been documented by the declassified east german girls tests, there is great hope for this therapy.
This line of research might also explain those who are married to a man for example leave him for a woman, have artificial insemination by a second man to have a child then one day leave the woman saying, I woke up one morning and discovered I wasnt gay anymore and then married a third man like Julie Cypher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Cypher

Hansen,
You wrote: "Romans 1:24-27 definitely classifies homosexuality as unclean."

Let's look at Romans 1:24
"Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them" (NASB).

Romans 1:24 definitely classifies homosexual lust as unclean. Jesus said, "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28). Jesus definitely classifies heterosexual lust as equal to breaking one of the 10 Commandments.

Paul offers a solution to burning with passion. "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9 NASB).

For Carrol, though you didn't ask:

My son presently teaches music in a Jesuit university back home. Here he sings a duet with a married former high school classmate during an informal reunion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PykVNa60NxI

His latest Christmas e-mail to us, family and cousins:

Just wondering if it is proper to give some of the offering from the annual [Family] Christmas Concert to our step grandmother... Don't know yet when she will be operated at the Heart Center....

To my cousins who don't know ["Mama"]-she is the 2nd wife of our great-grandfather [name]... She lived with us [when I was a kid and] I started calling her "Mama Martha" because she always cooked for me non-vegetarian meals. Hehehe.

For all of us singles out there--makes us wonder who will take care of us when we grow old, eh?

Jesus himself said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality, although he did affirm the Levitical laws. But if that is the redoubt for the conservatives, presumably they would be obliged to observe and enforce the other Levitical proscriptions as well, including dietary laws and regulations about the fabric content of the clothes we wear. To do otherwise, to enforce some provisions and not others, would be to engage in something I call the ruse of selective literalism.

Not only did Jesus say nothing about homosexuality (in spite of the consistent message that Jesus' teaching and example that should always be followed). Paul said that women should not speak or teach in church; something the church significantly ignores.

Each of those subjects were addressing contemporary traditions, not a timeless principle. Paul's "cure" for lust was marriage! But, if a woman was married, she should not leave her husband, however, if she did, she must remain single (no justifiable reason for leaving was allowed). Women had no choice then, it was entirely up to the Father to either deny or give his daughter in marriage. He also stated that woman was created for the sake of man, not man for woman. Again: the use of selective texts to support a position.

Heather, If Romans 1:24 is all we had, I would agree; however, context must also be considered. Romans 1 says that they were given up to impurity because they had exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the creature instead of the Creator (vs 25). Verse 26 then uses the terms "degrading passions" a combination of words I was unable to find again in the NT. Verse 28 says they were given over to a "depraved mind."

These two words are used together in 2 Ti.3:8, in reverse order, with reference to Jannes and Jambres, two of the magicians who, according to tradition, withstood Moses before Pharaoh. Timothy says they opposed the truth. Possibly Jannes and Jambres were gay.

"Possibly Jannes and Jambres were gay."

Wow! That is a perverted form of eisegesis. That is, unless you can furnish your reasoning. Otherwise, it is sheer "top of the head" stuff which has no place in biblical interpretation.

Footnote for the Timothy verses refers to Dathan and Abiram; again nothing whatsoever about being "gay."

Hansen,
You are right, context is important when looking at verses in the Bible. That is why I think we have to remember Romans 1 is dealing with homosexual lust, and not the entire genre of homosexuality.

2 Tim 3:8 says: "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith."

Let's look at another place Paul uses the phrase "depraved mind."

1 Tim 6:3-6
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.

The issue is someone who is adovcating something contrary to Jesus Christ.

Let's go back to Romans 1 and see what the root of the problem was, according to Paul.

Romans 1:21-26
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,"

It is very clear the reason Paul believes God gave them over to degrading passions.

Romans 1:28 "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper;"

The reason these people were given over to a depraved mind is because of worshipping something other than God (vs 21, 23, 25, 28). That is the root of their problem.

Paul's use of the phrase "depraved mind" is consistent between 1 Tim 6:3-6 and Romans 1:21-28. Paul uses the phrase "depraved mind" in reference to someone who is not giving God or Jesus Christ the proper place in their life. Shouldn't we read 2 Tim 3:8 with his other uses of the phrase in mind?

2 Tim 3:9 says "But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's and Jambres's folly was also."

Exodus 7:11 "Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts."

You wrote: "Possibly Jannes and Jambres were gay." I do not see where you get that idea, but let me know.

Meanwhile, the folly of these two men (magic) seems to have been obvious and well-known to pagan writers Pliny and Apuleius. Their folly was also obvious to Origen, an early Christian from Egypt.

"In the third century the tomb of Jannes and Jambres was shown in Egypt; Christian saints knew it as a place where the evil demons could be consulted for magic purposes (see the story of Macarius in Palladius, "Historia Lausiaca"; Fabricius, "Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test." i. 181, ii. 106-111). Jannes and Jambres are the subjects of many legendary tales, one of which is presented in a Greek work entitled "Pœnitentia Jannis et Mambre," counted among the Apocrypha in Pope Gelasius' "Decretum," and referred to by Origen (to Matt. xxvii. 9). These legends seem to have been known also to such pagan writers as Pliny and Apuleius; Pliny ("Historia Naturalis," xxxi. 11) mentions Moses, Jannes, and Jotape (Rotape?) among the Jewish magicians, and Apuleius ("Apologia," xc.) mentions Moses and Jannes among the world's great magicians." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=J&artid=151

When Paul said their folly was obvious, he was referring to what they were famous for; magic.

Jannes and Jambres?

Dear Lord, can you still see us?

Arlyn, thank you for the reference about same-sex wedding ceremonies in ancient Rome. Let me restate that these men were understood as having departed from what was natural for them, which is why they were in general disapproved of. On the other hand, pederastic man/boy relationships, with the man often married, were considered acceptable because a free Roman male had the right to sexual access to anyone socially lower than himself.
Posted by: Carrol Grady | 31 December 2007 at 12:30
-------------------------------------------------------------

How would anyone know what was natural for the two men to do?

Romans descends into nonsense if it is construed to say: heterosexual men are not to have sex with each other. That is abhorrent to God. Only gay men must do these things.

Don't try to string it together, just keep throwing water!

What happens when we begin to question whether gays to straights exist at all according to the Bible?
Ask Peter Ould about that:

http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/11/23/the-false-paradigm-that-distorts-ou...

"Does the Scripture say that in Christ there is neither gay nor straight? No. In fact the issue never arises because the anthropology of the Bible doesn’t address the issue. This is isn’t because its authors came from a time when such notions were intellectually and socially absent, but rather because they are not valid descriptors of human identity in the way that sex, race and economic existence are. Sexuality descriptors simply don’t fit into the way that human beings are designed to operate. Why? Because they are the emotive response to a fallen environment and not natural and god-ordained fundamentals of human existence."

Here is a video of a lecture on the topic:

http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/11/08/lecture-at-st-johns-nottingham/

The issue in Romans 1 was rejection of the Creator. As a result, those who did this were given over to degrading (SN#819) passion (SN#3806) (vs 26). Verse 28 says that those who did not acknowledge God were given a depraved (SN#96) mind(SN#3563).

It is quite easy to arrive at the Jannes and Jambres reference from here. Both SN#3563 and SN#96 are used in 2 Ti. 3:8.

The reference from I Ti.6: 5 is also connected, although not in such a direct way. The Greek word numbered 5351 is a common link between these passages.

Romans 1 is dealing with people who worship the creature rather than the creator.
2 Ti. 3: is dealing with those who oppose the truth
1 Ti. 6:5 is referring to those who suppose that godliness is a means of financial gain.

Having had the misfortune of reading some of the unsanitized Egyptian myths, which reek of homosexuality, castration, and masturbation, it is not a great leap to consider that Jannes and Jambres may have been gay. Some of the magicians eventually advised Pharaoh to cooperate with Moses, realizing they were out gunned (Ex. 8:19).

The point is that in Romans 1, homosexuality is described as an uncleanness, which is condemned in the NT as a work of the flesh. Other practices are also condemned as works of the flesh. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that the NT condemnation of homosexuality is based on the interpretation of disputed terms. It is not.

While some people, apparently Heather included, might want to distinguish homosexual lust from non lustful homosexual practice, the burden is hers to demonstrate consecrated homosexual love from the Bible. While Scripture also condemns the abuse of the heterosexual union, there are plenty of examples of blessed heterosexual unions in Scripture. Not so for the homosexual team.

Augustine held that the heterosexual union was also contaminated by lust; however, because it produced children, it was ok if it was done with a view to procreation.

Ron Stone M.D.,
I believe people do have a choice in how they behave.

What if you were raised by animist non-Christian parents on an island off the eastern coast of Papua New Guinea and nobody on the island had even heard of Christianity or the Bible. Do you believe that if you had a good male friend when you were in your early teenage years, or earlier, that he could have convinced you to become gay? To want to tell a same-aged boy that you [romantically] liked him when you were 8 or 10? Or that if you had had an older male friend you looked up to, that he could have convinced you to become gay? Let's say being gay was not considered bad at all on this island, but was considered just as normal as being straight. So, do you believe that when you were 8 years old, or 10 or 14 that you were conditioned to like girls, and that if given the right circumstances you could have been conditioned to become attracted to males?

If you do believe this, then I can understand why you believe people are not born with their orientation.

For me, it is far easier to believe that orientation is something they grew up with that they did not choose. Yes, we choose our behavior, but I'm speaking of who we are attracted to. Most of us can remember in high school or college liking somebody who we wished we didn't like, because they were the wrong kind of person for us (ie: too shy, too loud, wrong values in life, dishonest, etc) or they liked somebody else. Or we can remember wishing we did like someone who fit the bill, our parents would have approved, but for whatever reason, we just didn't feel the spark with them. We might have given them a chance, but finally realized we were fooling ourselves. Haven't we all faced that scenario to some degree, in high school or college? That indicates we don't get to choose who we are attracted to, though we do get to choose how we behave and who we let get close to us.

I think orientation lies dormant for many years, but that blossoms slowly for a certain amount of time, until we become very aware of the fact. The time frame varies for different people.

Regarding the physical "habits mentioned above," your statistics of what percentage do what is not convincing me that therefore we should condemn them all. Nope. Let us separate the action (which not all gays, and some straights, participate in) from the orientation. The orientation does not require they participate in your list of "habits" that you are trying to use to argue against the entire group of gays.

Just because statistics show that men are more likely to cheat on their partner than women are, does not therefore mean women should start choosing women over men. That kind of logic, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just doesn't work with many of us here.

Hansen,
You don't even believe Jannes and Jambres were gay, you are just saying it is possible. Well, I suppose a lot of things are possible. It doesn't matter to me either way. They were famous for their involvement in magic, not romantic lives.

You wrote: "The point is that in Romans 1, homosexuality is described as an uncleanness, which is condemned in the NT as a work of the flesh." I disagree with you. Romans 1 addresses homosexual lust, not including homosexual love actions.
And you actually prove that you agree with me, that the Bible does not clearly address homosexual love, because you say that the burden is mine to show it is in the Bible.
Just as the Bible writers do not address driving a car, flying an airplane, submarines, or cell phones, the Bible writers do not clearly address monogamous, same-gender, loving romantic relationships. So even you agree that trying to use the Bible to prove homosexual love is wrong, is ahistorical and stretching the Bible verses beyond their meanings.
Why do you disregard the clear principle Paul gives us in reference to dealing with lust?

"But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Cor 7:9 NASB).

Why is Paul, a divinely inspired author, wrong for giving us this principle?

You wrote: "Augustine held that the heterosexual union was also contaminated by lust; however, because it produced children, it was ok if it was done with a view to procreation." My question for you - then is it wrong for two widowers to get married when they are 65 years old and clearly too old to procreate? Or is it wrong for two 25 year olds, who know they are sterile or infertile, to get married since they can not procreate? What do you think? What would Paul say?

One of my deepest regrets took place during the Nixon administration in one of our boarding schools. The subject of homosexuality arose during a bible class and nice young lady, whose brother was quite effeminate, said that some people couldn’t help the way they were. The class quickly informed her otherwise and went on to state the usual party line: abomination, pedophilia, incest, behavior so disgusting to God that he burned up an entire city, etc. I don’t know that my voice was the loudest in the room, but it was certainly in the top 3 as she burst into tears and ran out. I was too full of myself to apologize, even though I knew I should.

Within the next few years, no fewer than 10 of my school and work friends came out of the closet, several directly to me because “I was the only friend they could trust,” imagine that. Several years later I went to work in the advertising community and over the years have met and worked with hundreds of gay people. I've taken gay men to lunch in restaurants where there were literally no women present. I've traveled with gay people, I've fished and hunted with and slept in the same tent with gay people. They have been and will continue to be guests in my home. Not one time has any of them ever tried to convert me to their “agenda”. I’ve also learned that every family has at least one aunt, uncle or cousin who is “eccentric” as my wife’s family puts it. My daughter attended a large, public high school and one of her best friends was the valedictorian who came from a large Mormon family. When she showed me his coming out letter the year after they graduated, I was encouraged to learn that his parents and most of his peers didn’t abandon or humiliate him the way we did.

While I won't try to refute any of the anti-gay arguments on this thread, I will tell you that some of the more strident invective can end up hurting you in the long run. 25 years later I ran into “the bible class girl” in the lobby of our church. As I approached her to apologize, she met my gaze and I caught the same familiar look of anguish on her face as she quickly turned away. To know that my self righteous remarks were so caustic that they still inflict pain decades later is a horrible burden to bear, but it is my burden. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

Hi Heather!

You're asking all the right questions about Augustine's views.

He spells them out very clearly in a book called "On the Good of Marriage" which to this day is, I believe, after Scriptrure itself, the single most influential thing ever written in the entire history of Christian sexual thought.

Here is a link for the whole book:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm

Augustine's formulation of the three-fold "goodness" of marriage as (1) offspring, (2)fidelity and (3) sacramental grace is what the Roman Catholic church still teaches.

It also teaches that it is a sin for a Christian husband and wife intentionally to prevent conception from taking place in each and every sexual encounter.

Augustine spells out a very clear hierarchy of sexual alternatives for Christians, the "best" at the top and working down from there

Celibacy
Marital Celibacy
Sex in Marriage for Procreation Only
Sex in Marriage no for Procreation (sin)
Fornication (sin)
Adultery (sin)
Unnatural Behviours (sin)

Augustine's book is easy and fun to read. I recommend it!

Dave

Heather, Jannes and Jambres were mentioned in Timothy because they opposed Moses, just as some opposed the message of Paul. Gays are mentioned in Romans 1 because they were given over to depraved minds for serving the creature instead of the Creator. Were Jannes and Jambres homosexuals? They are mentioned in Timothy in the context of men who seduced weak women. The issue was not their sexual proclivities but the resistance they revealed to the word of Moses.

There is good reason to believe that the homosexual practices described in Romans 1 are condemned as uncleanness in other parts of the NT. If you want to take the position that modern gays are practitioners of a unique type of homosexual love that falls outside the Biblical condemnation of uncleanness, you can certainly do that. But since there is no record of any such love in Scripture, this unique and special love, perhaps similar to the type which enthralled Oscar Wilde, exists only in your imagination. There is no Biblical account of homosexual love blessed by God.

Homosexuals are set on a certain course. The "Law," that is the condemnation of that course, is not going to change their desires or practices. During the years that I spent serving the gay community during the AIDS crisis, I met one individual who had become a Christian and turned away from homosexuality. This fellow appeared quite genuine in his conversion. He denounced homosexuality as debauchery. Unfortunately, he had acquired HIV during his gay days.

When I met him, he had about a year to live. He spent some of his time going to prayer services, seeking healing from Jesus. I hope he found it.

"there is no record of any such love in Scripture, this unique and special love..."

I challenge anyone to show that the love between David and Jonathan was not a "unique and special love" as it is described:

"Jonathan's soul became closely bound to David's and Jonathan came to love him as his own soul....Jonathan made a pact with David to love him as his own soul; he took off the cloak he was wearing and gave it to David, and his armour too, even his swords, his bow and his belt" 1 Sam. 18:1-5.

"Once again Jonathan swore the solemn oath to David because he loved him as his own soul" 1 Sam. 29:17.

"Then thy kissed each other and both shed many tears" 1Sam. 20:41.

"O Jonathan, in your death I am stricken, I am desolate you, Jonathan my brother. Very dear to me you were, your love to me more wonderful than the love of a woman" 2 Sam. 1:26.

The love is described as surpassing the love for a woman. Surely, this is the type of love, whether sexual or not, that expresses a very superior love.

Marriage, at that time, was not a love match, but to unite families, tribes, or kingdoms and love was irrelevant; which is why this love as expressed is a much deeper love.

Is it only "sinful" if it is expressed sexually?
Were Jonathan and David not physically expressing love by kisses?

"Whether sexual or not." Rather a big issue, whether sexual or not. The relationship between Jonathan and David, let's assume it was sexual. So David had a gay lover. Feel better now? David also had an idol in his home, multiple wives and concubines, was given to cruelty at times, etc. etc.

The NT says Christians should greet one another with a holy kiss. You may want to interpret that as men with men working that which is unseemly, consequent of a depraved mind; however, there is nothing to suggest that David and Jonathan's relationship was blessed by God, if it was "gay."

Try including the relevent context when you quote me: "There is no Biblical account of homosexual love blessed by God." If you are unable to do that, then refrain from quoting others, since you misrepresent what they say, thereby testifying falsely.

Blessings to All,
I find most of you protest to much on the subject.
Does it really matter in the end.
The God you talk about is my judge and not you folk.

The Bible also says your ways are not my ways, your thoughts are not my thoughts.
Lets leave it to him to decide, who is right and who is wrong.
But mankind can not do this because of sin and the agenda of the evil one.
Yes the evil one has an agenda and that is to put a wedge between you and our saviour.

Yes I have agenda as a gay person and that is to live my life with my partner to the end of my life.
For better or worse in sickness and in health till death shall we part.
Now in the hetero world that means about 9 years and you can get divorced and get remarried and be accepted in the church.
Now Jesus did speak on divorce.

I have lived with my partner for 26 years and I am just one of many.
God is my judge to whether it is OK to be homo,hetero,black white or not.
Humans are NOT and the Bible says we have all have fallen short of the glory of God. In others words, we are all sinners in this world.
Good will to all mankind at this time of the year and all year. "Lest ye be judged".
Noel

Elaine, while we can't really prove for certain that David and Jonathan's love was what we today know as homosexual, (since David seems to have been sexually attracted to Bathsheeba, could he have been what we today know as bisexual?), I think the case for Jonathan's being homosexual is strengthened by his father's tirade when Jonathan defended David's absence from the New Moon festival."You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?"

Considering the custom of Roman soldiers serving far from home of having a male lover, and the fact that the centurion used a word to refer to his sick servant that can be interpreted as a male lover, I think the case is fairly strong that Jesus, probably knowingly, healed the centurion's male lover.

Thanks for that interesting comment, Carol. What passages in Scripture use the word for "male lover" when referring to the centurion's servant? More specifically, what passages in the Bible use the term in that sense?

Of Course, Jesus ran all over Israel with twelve men, we shouldn't leave that out, if you want to build a real story. One of them even kissed Jeus in front of a crowd yet! Tom

Carrol,

Jonathan, of course, had a son named Mephibosheth. Was Jonathan bisexual, too, like David? Since there has been found no archeological evidence yet supporting David and Jonathan's existence, are we even certain they're historical figures, not mythical as some modern biblical scholars assert? (Hmm..., Elaine?)

My point is it would be easy for us, including me, to read our own presuppositions into an ancient text. This is such an important, existential topic, however, dealing with real people we know intimately, that there should be no room for speculations.

I welcome Dr Stone, and others, to comment on the piece of research I cited earlier {Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: consistency and change over time_Journal of Sex Research_, Feb, 2006 by Margaret Rosario, Eric W. Schrimshaw, Joyce Hunter, Lisa Braun
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_43/ai_n16107876).

I've only read the piece by John R. Jones published in the current Spectrum issue. If anybody, Carrol and others, have already read the new book, I'm interested to know what the authors of chapter 5, the Biological Determinants... and chapter 7, Response... wrote. Thanks!

"supporting David and Jonathan's existence, are we even certain they're historical figures, not mythical as some modern biblical scholars assert? (Hmm..., Elaine?)"

Whether mythical or not, the Bible is used by most of the world's Christians to support their beliefs. What they do with such texts is up to individual interpretation, isn't it?

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the info about Augustine's book "On the Good of Marriage." I read part and it is very interesting! Ha ha ha. :)

Doctor Stone

I am having difficulty understanding you.

On the hand, you seem to be very hostile toward homosexual people, as seen in your tendency to condemn all for the morally irresponsible conduct of others.

On the other hand, you seem to have spent more time with homsexual pornographical materials than all the rest of us combined.

I would appreciate anything you can say that will help me and perhaps others to understand this.

Thank you!

Dave

Yes, David, I would appreciate Dr. Stone's addressing his immersion into the gay culture (for scientific purposes, of course).

What say you, Dr. Stone, about lesbianism? Is there a similar proportion of AIDS, bath houses, pornography, etc. demonstrated in lebians? Or, is it male homosexuality that is so despicable?

Also, why are males the most outspoken against homosexuals and not females? Homophobia? Females are neither threatened by male or female gays. Why?

Original Genesis... A Great Starting Point

Hi Dave Larson,

My layman's comments are not directly about the book but about "original genesis" as the starting point for analyzing thoughts and conduct.

I have included 4 quotes and my comments from another blog, so, pardon the repetition of certain phrases, thanks.

I hope these comments come across with the same tone that you have expressed.

Genetics is something that transcends what we may think or feel about heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Twins make my case that biology does not determine thoughts or conduct.

My point is the difference between "being" (biology) and "doing" (thinking / conduct)... what we do with our physical bodies is a result of what we think... regardless of what we think (or feel) about our original genesis.

First, twins are created male or female (biology), not heterosexual or homosexual (thinking / doing).

Our original genesis does not "determine" what we think and what we do.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of thinking and doing, not the result of "being" (original genesis).

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, homosexuality would not exist at all... ever... in a single birth or the birth of twins.

Speaking as a layman, not a scholar or a scientist, what science knows at the beginning of the 21st century about the DNA double-helix strand or the structure and transmission of "being" when sperm and egg unite (a union and a fusion of two distinct and already living entities), does not support a gene for thought or conduct, good or bad.

If it were to be found scientifically "true" that there is a homosexual ("gay") gene, there would be a heterosexual gene too... but DNA does not go there... and it never will.

Neither a heterosexual or a homosexual "gene" will ever be found because there is no "gene" for good or bad thinking & good or bad doing.

Some good folk seem to suggest that homosexual conduct is biblically "good" and "ok" and so it is therefore societally "ok" too.

It is my understanding that "be fruitful and multiply" is only a reference to heterosexual conduct and reproduction.

In no way does it imply that homosexual conduct as a single man or single woman is biblically "good."

Also, when it is said that what God created was "good," the "good" was a reference to "being" (original genesis), not "doing" (heterosexual reproductive conduct).

Of course, being created to "be" good implies that we were also created to "do" good too.

Quote # 1 (from another blog)

>> "... we would have to conclude that straight male-male homosexuality,

>> "or straight female-female homosexuality is not wrong,

>> "rather it is when a man has both a wife, and a male lover, that his sexual acts become wrong,

>> "and this was a common practice in ancient societies,

>> "the societies that the deity of Avraham told the offspring of Yisra’el not to be like,

>> "whereas straight homosexuality was not".

My comment -

It is my understanding, as a layman, not a scholar, that the conclusion is not supported by the Torah, the prophets, the Tanakh, the Mishna, the Hebrew masoretic text, the Greek septuagint text, the Peshitta or any other text.

It is my understanding that God created us male and female with the freedom to think and choose to conduct ourselves as he designed us (heterosexual) or to conduct ourselves in a way that he did not design us (homosexual).

Our original genesis does not "determine" what we think and what we do.

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, sin would not exist at all... ever.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of thinking and doing, not the result of "being" (original genesis).

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, homosexuality would not exist at all... ever.

Neither a heterosexual or a homosexual "gene" will ever be found because there is no "gene" for thinking & doing.

Quote # 2 - (from another blog)

>> ... the question of where homosexuality comes from is not important.
>> "The outcome is the same."

My comment -

Ultimately, I agree with this.

However, in the context of the world wide societal discussion, it is super important because of the "gay is good" for a "progressive" and "open" and "healthy" society point of view that is being defined and defended by the 1.8% homosexual community.

And, when God's point of view is not tolerated in the public square because the heterosexual and homosexual communities are not biblically oriented and informed (thinking), anything goes (doing).

Our original genesis is being used in a way that is not scientifically supported and impossible to "prove" one way or the other.

Our original genesis does not "determine" what we think and what we do.

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, sin would not exist at all... ever.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of thinking and doing, not the result of being (original genesis).

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, homosexuality would not exist at all... ever.

Neither a heterosexual or a homosexual "gene" will ever be found because there is no "gene" for thinking & doing.

Quote # 3 - (from another blog)

>> "I think that what you are missing is the idea of sexual orientation.
>> "There is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual action."

My comment -

Sure, there is a "difference" between the words "sexual orientation" (thinking) and "sexual action" (conduct).

However, ultimately, this is not just a difference between words.

My point is the difference between "being" (biology) and "doing" (thinking / conduct)... what we do with our physical bodies is a result of what we think... regardless of what we think about our original genesis.

Being created male and female is about a distinction between the two and not a separation of the two... to "separate" living sperm and living egg is death for both sperm and egg.

First, we were created "male and female" (biology), NOT "heterosexual and homosexual" (thinking / doing).

Our original genesis does not "determine" what we think and what we do.

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, sin would not exist at all... ever.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are the result of thinking and doing, not the result of "being" (original genesis).

If original genesis did determine thinking and doing, homosexuality would not exist at all... ever.

Second, we were created with the ability and freedom to think & do things in a way that our creator can bless "or" condemn.

There is a distinction between how we were created and our thinking / doing.

How we think about our bodies and what we do with our bodies can not be separated from our original genesis.

If it were to be found scientifically "true" that there is a homosexual ("gay") gene, there would be a heterosexual gene too... but it has never been scientifically found... and it never will.

Neither a heterosexual or a homosexual "gene" will ever be found because there is no "gene" for thinking & doing.

Quote # 4 - (from another blog)

>> "... I believe SOME homosexuals are born that way" ...
>> "I believe homosexuality is an illness which some are born with " ... etc.

My comment -

Change is not possible from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or vice-versa), but you may be surprised by the reason why.

Homosexuals can NOT "change" because they were NOT created homosexual... nor did they evolve.

Heterosexuals can NOT "change" because they were NOT created heterosexual... nor did they evolve.

Our biology does not determine our conduct.

If our biology determined our conduct, homosexuality would not exist… ever.'

In other words, biblically speaking we were created male and female, our "being" (biology).

We were NOT created heterosexual or homosexual... our "conduct".

Our "salvation is by grace through faith", i.e., an acceptance of a reality that requires a choice that results in change from a wrong way of thinking and living to a right way of thinking and living.

If homosexuality (conduct) or heterosexuality (conduct) was a matter of biology, NEITHER would be sinful and in need of repentance.

We were created to "be fruitful and multiply" ... obviously this implies heterosexuality, NOT homosexuality.

Our conduct, being fruitful and multiplying, that which is related to our biology, is not sin and so it is not a matter of repentance.

Homosexuality is not a word that refers to who we "are", our biology, but to what we "do", our choice.

Biology, who we are, is not sinful...

However, what we do with our biology, i.e. our body, is either right or wrong, sinless or sinful.

Of course sinners can "change" their conduct by choice.

However, sinners can not "change" being sinners. That will be taken care of at the resurrection.

It is my understanding that in the biblical viewpoint regarding Adam and Eve and the creation vs evolution debate, our genesis is male and female, not heterosexual and homosexual.

Without agreement about origins, the issue of "choosing" and "changing" results in a never-ending discussion without resolution.

Choice is the issue, not change.

For example, the biblical admonition to "choose this day whom you will serve" is followed immediately with the action statement "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Just as our original heritage helps us to know ourselves and our future conduct, so also our "original genesis" helps us to determine who we are as well as our future "choices" and subsequent "conduct".

We are free to choose; we are not free to change.

Technological advancement and medical cut and paste of body parts is a different discussion.

What this means is that our "choice" determines our conduct. Our "biology" is what we "are", it does NOT determine what we "do".

Our biology does NOT determine our conduct.

If our biology determined our conduct, homosexuality would NOT exist… "ever".

When did mindless evolution "decide" that the choice of heterosexual conduct needed the choice of homosexual conduct as a competitor to carry on the so-called "progressive" evolutionary survival of the fittest?

Who decided that the biblical viewpoint about our "original genesis", that which was called "good" about male and female heterosexuality, needed to be "changed" to include the culturally "progressive" and so-called "as-good-as and/or better" male/male or female/female homosexuality?

As Jesus said to the woman caught with a man who was not her husband, when no male accuser claimed to be without any sin, he didn't condemn the woman either; he lifted her up when he told her to "go, and sin no more."

When the woman accepted the authority of Jesus, and did as he said, the woman lifted up Jesus. We will definitely see her at the resurrection.

Whether we look at our genesis from the biblical viewpoint or from the viewpoint of the creation vs evolution debate, the ONLY way to exist and to continue to exist is by a union of a man and a woman (marriage is a different discussion).

If evolution were ever to be universally accepted as true, when did mindless evolution "decide" that heterosexual union had a competitor in homosexual union?

Is this to be construed as evolutionary survival of the fittest?

Not... it just does not make common sense.

For example, which came first, heterosexuality or homosexuality?

Adam and Eve were not created heterosexual (and by implication not homosexual).

They were created male and female... their conduct by "choice" was to express themselves to each other in the heterosexual manner.

"Be fruitful and multiply" (original intent) implies ONLY heterosexual conduct, not homosexual conduct... ever... forever.

Well Dave, that's about it. As I said at the top, I hope these comments come across with the same tone that you have expressed.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Art,
You write that God created us "male" and "female." My question - Did God create hermaphrodites? Who gets to decide who a hermaphrodite can marry, you?

You write, "we were created with the ability and freedom to think & do things in a way that our creator can bless 'or' condemn." I say, you have again created a false dichotomy; some things in life are good, some are bad, and some are morally neutral. Does God have moral advice regarding if I put my bookshelf on my north wall or my south wall? Does God prefer us to eat pears or apples?

You write, "Be fruitful and multiply" (original intent) implies ONLY heterosexual conduct, not homosexual conduct... ever... forever." Perhaps you didn't see the above discussion about Augustine's views of sex inside marriage (only for procreation)? This argument leads to several questions for you: 1. is sex only allowed between two fertile married partners with the ability to procreate? 2. are infertile people allowed to marry and have sex? 3. are two widowers, age 65, allowed to marry and have sex? 4. is using contraception contrary to your understanding of God's desires for people living today?

Not speaking as a scientist, even though there is no gene for homosexuality, there is abundant evidence in the scientific studies of animals that homosexuality can be induced by hormonal changes introduced in utero.

Can anyone prove, indisputably that human hormones do NOT effect the embryo while in utero?
Unless, and until there is overwhelming and convincing scientific evidence that nothing during gestation has any affect whatsoever on the sexual identity or orientation, it is a moot subject.

Why is it perfectly acceptable, even condoned, for a heterosexual individual to live life that is "normal" for him (any heterosexuals out there who made a conscious choice of his/her orientation?) but is an abomination for someone who has been drawn to the same sex, in the same manner as heteros to the opposite sex, to live in consistency with his own selfhood? To live a "lie" in constant denial of who you really are, is stressful beyond measure. That there are bisexuals and those who flaunt their "gayness" is no reason to consider that is the norm, anymore than the hedonistic heterosexual lifestyles is not a true portrayal of the majority of heterosexuals who live quiet, married lives with their families. Is it imopossible to believe that there are homosexuals who truly love each other and wish to commit their lives to care for one another? If you do not know such people, your life is far too insulated.

Using the Bible as the be-all and end-all answer to all of today's modern questions would make it impossible to show from those pages anything about: stem cell use; bone marrow and organ transplants; in vitro fertilization and more.

Again, if we used the Bible for our source of information on marriage, can anyone give the name of one well-known patriarch, or male protoganist who was not also polygamous? It was the solution to heed the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and they did their best, with multiple wives and concubines to inherit and fill the earth. You will not find a single text in Scripture condemning polygamy. The repeated idea that Adam and Eve represents the first marriage: no marriage was ever mentioned. Even in the story of Mary and Joseph, it only says that "before they came to live together, she was found to be with child" and he took her to his house.

The so-called "Virgin birth" was not introduced until the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, some 40-50 years later; even the first writer, Paul knew nothing of a "virgin birth." Had it been common knowledge then, it is a glaring omission.

Christianity has inherited an extreme aversion to anything sexual. One need only read some of the early church fathers, culminating in Augustine, to see that celibacy was the ideal, and the only allowance for intercourse was in marriage and for procreation. The Hebrews had no such aversion, but considered it a gift of God to be enjoyed.

Heather/Elaine.

Please don't blame God for human tragedy. It cost Him plenty Please don't forget that! Please don't excuse human depravity either. None is right before God. Please don't set up the Greeks and Romans as normative. Please don't read more into Scrptural history that God put there.

David wasn't a man after God's own heart because of David's infidelities. David paid heavily for them. Reading between the lines is reading nothing. Tom

Tom,

What human tradgedy are you reffering to?

Oops, guess I misread all of the praise given David. Did God ever reprimand David for having several wives? It was only when he took another man's wife that he was punished: that is the definition of adultery--not having several women, but taking another man's property.

Would we have human tragedy or depravity if God had not allowed sin to enter? Who is responsible if God is in control? Or, did he turn it over to the Devil? "The Debbil made me do it?"

Do we blame a toddler when hit by a car when it was the parent's fault for allowing him to run out on the road?

Tom,
I do not blame God for human tragedy. And I agree with you that God cares about human suffering: intimately, deeply and actively.
I agree with you, it is not good to make excuses for human depravity. I am not.
You wrote: "Please don't read more into Scrptural history that God put there." What did I "read" into Scripture, or was that comment for someone else? My question to you is - who chose what you call "scripture" to be "scripture"? And when did they choose it?
What did Martin Luther think of the second book of the Maccabees and of the book of Esther?

Hi Art!

Thank you for taking the time to write all that you did. The most precious thing any one of us has is time because it is the one thing we cannot replenish. So, again, thank you. Here are some responses:

1. I have two interests in this topic:

(A) From the standpoint of the academic discipline of Christian ethics, this topic presents an endlessly fascinating opportuity to consider how to integrate scientific, historial, pastoral, philosophical and Biblical resources, keeping in mind that for we Christians Scripture is primary just as its Constitution is for a nation.

(B) Many years ago I lost to a self-inflicted death a gay person who was very important to me. This is why for me this is an academic excercise, but it is not merely that. This is true for many of us, no matter what side(s) we are on. This is why we need to be gentle with each other.

2. Long time ago I decided to read everything in the English scholarly journals for the previous several years (I've forgotten how many!) on why some of us turn out to be gay and others straight. If I didn't accomplish this, I came close.

When it was all over, one sentence I had found summarized everything so well that I've not forgotten it:

"The eitiology of the homosexual orientation is complex and individually variable."

I've looked at the scientific literature since then only every so often; however, I've not yet seen anything that summarizes what the scientists are finding any better than that.

This is probably an excellent summary of what they are learning about the origins of the heterosexual oientation too. The process must be the same, though the particulars different.

3. I agree with you that there is no "gay gene," or at least I don't know that there is.

4. Yet more generally speaking we are talking about an individually distinctive case-by-case convergence of physical, environmental and volitional factors.

Homosexual men very rarely speak of having "chosen" this; on occasion some women do. So we need to be careful about the "volitional factor."

5. I also agree with you that David Hume was right when he made it clear that it is logically impossible to derive an "ought" merely from an "is."

So, as you say, in and of itself, having this or that oriention more or less strongly does not tell anyone how to live. On the other hand, this is not totally irrelevant either.

6. I also agree that we should not leave the impression that our sexual interests never change in the slightest.

Our lives are always moving and they are always connected to other lives; therefore, nothing ever remains 100% the same.

Yet most established homosexual and heterosexual orientations change so little over time that for all practical purposes we should treat them as fixed.

7. I think people should be given all the time they need to clarify their sexual orientations. Sometimes everyone else knows what's going on before the individual is ready to say so. That's fine.

8. My quetion is this: When a Christian looks into the mirror and says "I know for certain that I am gay," what should be his or her next step?

I'm certain we agree that the next step should be to plan a way of life that is ethically responsible, given this fact.

9. Those of us who are Christians agree that for us sexual promiscuity is ethically unaceptable whether we are straight or gay.

This is because it separates too severely the physical aspects of sexual intimacy from its other dimensions.

The more sexual partners one has the less intimate, in all of itimacy's dimensions, one can be with any one of them.

10. I suspect that through points 1- 9 we enjoy widespread agreement; however, at #10 this concensus ends because some of us honestly believe that establishing homosexual partnerships that are analogous to good hereosexual marriages is a morally responsible option and some of us honestly don't.

I am among those who do.

I hasten to add that this is not the offficial poistion of the church in which I am a minister and it is not the stance of the school at which I teach. This is my own view, not theirs.

I respect the positions of my church and school as thoughtfully considered and honestly held conclusions. I am grateful that they let me have mine and I try to earn my keep in other ways.

Yet it is only fair that I make this difference unmistakenly clear.

My final invitation is that those of us who honestly see things differently at #10 keep in mind that we probably agree on # 1, 2, ,3 ,4, 5, 6. 7, 8 & 9 and, that's a lot!

I say let's work together on them and put our differences at #10 on the shelf for a while until we are all more able to see things a bit more clearly.

Thank you, Art!

Dave

These are just a few of the scientific observations on this subject:

"Homosexuality runs in certain family lines more than in others, even when the children are given up for adoption - strong evidence that genetics play a role in homosexual development. There's also speculation that the hormonal environment in utero can influence sexual orientation later in life.

"Science is gradually disproving the idea of homosexuality as a "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice". This is something most homosexual people have known their whole lives. The great majority of homosexual people experience their sexual orientation as something they discover in themselves, rather than something they choose for themselves. Homosexual people are no more responsible for their homosexuality than straight people are responsible for their heterosexuality.

Current research allows monitoring of normal fetal exposure to testosterone in utero. When subsequent behavior is linked to this information, we will understand more than has been previously available from studies of abnormal exposure of the fetus to high levels of androgen, overdoses due to drugs, or adrenal malfunction. Research continues into the effect of prenatal brain-sexing on homosexual development. We know that lack of male hormone at a crucial state of male fetal development can lead to a feminine brain in a male body. It is clear that, as with other aspects of behavior, sexual orientation is crucially mediated by hormonal influences on the developing brain in utero. It is believed that abnormal hormones interact with neurotransmitters, the chemicals that direct the construction of the brain, affecting the sex centers, mating centers, and the so-called gender-role centers, which assume their structure at different times of brain development (Moir & Jessel, 1991).

"We in the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department eventually concluded that human sexual identity is mostly built into our constitution by the genes we inherit and the embryogenesis we undergo. Male hormones sexualize the brain and the mind."

The many contributors to this forum who have spent their lives in the scientific disciplines, do you dismiss the psychiatrists and psychologists who have spent decades studing this condition?

Or, because it is at variance with previously held concepts, often based on biblical interpretation, that the Bible always trumps contemporary science?

Elaine, Carlita and Heather,

God didn't create hermaphrodites any more than he created an infant with a foot in its brain and other tragic anomolies.

The "What if?" game is no argument for or against a proposition.

God praised David, because he could take correction, Saul could not. I think there is a lesson in there somewhere.

I think Dave made a very good statement--I thank him. The issue is not acceptance, the issue is approbation which he points our in his statement re; his sponsoring church's stance.

My position is simply in support of the church's stance.
Tom

Hi Heather M May,

You comment -

Art,
>> You write that God created us "male" and "female."
>> My question -
>> Did God create hermaphrodites?
>> Who gets to decide who a hermaphrodite can marry, you?

My comment -

Heather, are you implicitly suggesting that your creator is the etiology of hermaphroditism and homosexuality... and heterosexuality... and if it "feels right" then get married with whomever makes you feel like a man... a woman... or both...?

Yes, pun and humor intended... However, levity is not intended, this is a heavy topic.

Or... did God really, truly and without ambiguity say that humankind was made in his image and likeness... and only male and female?

This is what I mean about "original genesis" helping in understanding divisive issues.

Heather, you comment -

>> You write, "we were created
>> with the ability and freedom
>> to think & do things
>> in a way that our creator
>> can bless 'or' condemn."

>> I [Heather] say, you [Art] have again created a false dichotomy;
>> some things in life are good, some are bad, and some are morally neutral.
>> Does God have moral advice regarding
>> if I put my bookshelf on my north wall or my south wall?
>> Does God prefer us to eat pears or apples?

My comment -

Heather, were Adam and Eve told NOT to eat one kind of edible item but all other edible items were good and ok?

Was not one activity, simple eating, "condemed" and the other "blessed?"

Is that a "false dichotomy"... i.e. two contradictory parts or opinions?

Where is the "dichotomy" in the "ability and freedom to think and do things" in a way our Creator can "bless or condemn?"

Heather, you comment -

>> You write, "Be fruitful and multiply" (original intent)
>> implies ONLY heterosexual conduct,
>> not homosexual conduct...
>> ever... forever."

>> Perhaps you didn't see the above discussion about
>> Augustine's views of sex inside marriage (only for procreation)?

>> This argument leads to several questions for you:

>> 1. is sex only allowed between two fertile married partners with the ability to procreate?
>> 2. are infertile people allowed to marry and have sex?
>> 3. are two widowers, age 65, allowed to marry and have sex?
>> 4. is using contraception contrary to your understanding of God's desires for people living today?

My comment -

Yes, I have read every post on this blog page... today was the first time I read these comments, so I read this whole page today.

It was just one of those days, you know how it is sometimes, when I had the time and the inclination to read a long blog page... and to take the time to comment extensively.

Heather, are you saying that "be fruitful and multiply" (original intent) does NOT imply ONLY heterosexual activity as your creator originally intended?

The 4 questions you pose are interesting, and what Augustine said about marriage is still relevant to understanding what thought leaders of the early church believed and taught.

However, my comments are about our "original genesis" and how this helps us today to relate to divisive issues.

Question #1 - No
Question #2 - Yes
Question #3 - Yes
Question #4 - No

Re #4 - I am a Christian, not a member of the Roman Catholic denomination or any denomination.

Well Heather, that's it.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hi Elaine!

I'm not certain if your comment was addressed to me; however, if it was, I'm very interested in the material you posted.

I guess at least some of it is from Johns Hopkins. My immediate reaction is, "Wow! What a change!"

I think that John Money who, put so much emphasis upon "gender assignment" years ago, was there.

I understand the difference between gender idenity and sexual orientation, but still your material is decidedly on the "nature" side of the continuum.

I don't think it is usually my job to adjudicate competing claims in other disciplines and I feel no need to do so in this case.

I'm still happy with the "complex and individually variable" summation.

I do believe that Scripture functions in the church somewhat like a constitution does for a nation.

In the first place, it literally brings the community into being,; i.e., it "constitutes" it. Second, it is the place where all arguments must eventually arrive, if they go that far.

Americans can disagree with each other as to what the Constitution meant in the past and what it should mean now, and they can even disagree with it. Yet one ceases to a citizen of this nation, in fact if not in name, the minute one says, "I couldn't care less what the Constitution says!" That's a legitmate stance; its just not an American one.

I think the analogy to Scripture is almost exact. Christians can and should debate Scripture, and sometimes perhaps disagree; but they cannot ignore or dismss it and still be Christians. But that's OK; there are many good people who aren't.

Change topic: Have you read anything about the imapact of birth order?

Thanks!

Dave

Dave:

At the risk of sounding too abstract I'd like to follow up on several of your comments. You wrote:

- [2] ... one sentence I had found summarized everything ... "The etiology of the homosexual orientation is complex and individually variable"

- [10] ... some of us honestly believe that establishing homosexual partnerships that are analogous to good heterosexual marriages is a morally responsible option and some of us honestly don't.

In my experience, both on this thread and more widely, it seems like people too frequently either forget or disagree with your above [2] summary sentence "The etiology of the homosexual orientation is complex and individually variable". What I find is a strong reductionistic tendency, even to the extent of employing fallacious argumentation like hasty generalization, in service of their positions. This happens on both ends of the spectrum (but I confess I find it more blatant among those opposed to any form of homosexuality). It seems to me that too frequently people will allow - rationally speaking - for the ends to justify the means. That is, since they view their foundational position as sound, then whatever arguments (even logically dubious ones) that are employed to further that position - are acceptable.

But, if so, why? Or, to use your wording , why do [10] "some of us honestly believe that establishing homosexual partnerships that are analogous to good heterosexual marriages is a morally responsible option and some of us honestly don't"?

To me the roots of this dilemma are fundamentally epistemological. For a Christian our sources of knowledge can be rooted in either experience (extended via fallible human authority) or revelation (extended by potentially fallible exegesis). And we like to believe these two streams are resolvable since God is the source of all truth. But in this context there is considerable difference in how much weight is placed by people on the evidence that apparently has been derived from these two fundamental sources.

For some, the 'plain reading' of scripture pretty much allows us to discount anything derived from human experience - which includes presumed scientific evidence. For those near the other end of this spectrum, scripture gets contextualized and marginalized to the point where there is little moral force left. And we are then, in effect, humanists with a thin Christian paint-job.

You write "let's ... put our differences at #10 on the shelf for a while" - where your [10] points at just this epistemic divide, I believe.

And my response is - perhaps pragmatically this makes sense, so that the emotionality might diminish somewhat. But I would then contend that until we recognize, and address, this 'knowledge' dissonance we aren't going to make any substantive progress. Putting it on the shelf will ultimately be a stalemate.

You write “keeping in mind that for we Christians Scripture is primary”. But this cannot be an unexamined axiom, even for a Christian, lest we succumb to Divine Command Theory. It is at this level that each of us must honestly and painfully wrestle with conflicting information and our own limitations.

" Have you read anything about the imapact of birth order?"

Yes, and it is a very important variable and has
been noted for homosexuality, in families of several boys.

Also, as most parents of more than one child can readily acknowledge, birth order affects a child for her entire life: IOW, the "baby" of the family will still be the "baby" when in her 90s!
Personalities are very definitely formed and affected by birth order. Certain characteristics are similar for most families.
Also, the sex of the oldest or youngest displays certain traits simply because of place in the birth order.

My father was raised by an older sister when he lost his mother when he was quite young. He related differently to females; also, because he had four daughters and no sons, he respected women's minds in a ways not seen in most men.

My son is the youngest with two older sisters. He has always looked up to women as being wiser, because of that position. Birth order is a fascinating subject!

Hi Dave, great points

Two quick comments...

Re #2 -

>> "... one sentence I had found
>> summarized everything so well that
>> I've not forgotten it:

>> "The eitiology
>> of the homosexual orientation
>> is complex and
>> individually variable."

My comment -

My focus is on the word "etiology"...

It is my layman's understanding that there is no DNA "etiology" for an "orientation" that can not be "fruitful and multiply" as the "original intent" of our creation as "male and female" suggests.

However, I agree that the "orientation" definitely is "individually variable" because it is a matter of "choice" about an activity, not a choice about DNA and "being" (biology, design, etc.)

RE #7 and #8 -

>> 7. I think people should be given
>> all the time they need
>> to clarify their sexual orientations. ... .

>> 8. ... When a Christian looks into the mirror
>> and says "I know for certain that I am gay,"
>> what should be his or her next step?

My comment -

Is the clarification of the "sexual orientation" understood as a matter of "choice" about an activity and not a matter of DNA and "being" (biology, design, created male AND female... not heterosexual or/AND homosexual, etc.)?

Or, is the clarification that the "orientation" is understood as "individually variable" and without a presupposition about "original genesis" and thus a change in thinking and conduct is of no eternal consequence?

Whatever we may think the "clarification" should be, the words of Jesus to the stone throwers and observers are appropriate... let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone, and to the individual, we can not condemn you either, however, as Jesus said, go and sin no more.

The dictionary definition of "abstain" is very appropriate in this context, "To refrain from something by one's own choice."

The "refraining" by "choice" implies that lust in the heart is sin, whether it is heterosexual lust or homosexual lust... so, as Jesus might say today, abstain.

Dave, as I said, I am not a scholar or a scientist and I have not studied the homosexual issue for years as you have indicated you have, and these are a layman's understanding and comments, but the "original genesis" starting point has definitely been a great help in walking through this mine field of point and counterpoint in a secular society that wants to remove "God talk" from the public square.

If we do not "start" with Jesus and his point of view, where do we start?

If I start with Jesus and his point of view as "the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world" and at the cross "it [ the at-one-ment/union] is finished," I can't start with the view that the etiology of the homosexual "orientation" is complex and individually variable, so world society must "change" it's way of thinking instead to avoid conflict.

I need to buy the book and read it for myself since Prof. Roy Gane is a contributor as a counterweight to provide "balance" about a soul grabbing topic with eternal consequences.

PS. Prof. Gane's father was a professor of mine at PUC when Des Ford was there... and my views on the heavenly sanctuary are closer to Des Fords than to Roy's and his father, but Prof. Gane is definitely someone whom I like to read about the "Altar Call."

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

8. My question is this: When a Christian looks into the mirror and says "I know for certain that I am gay," what should be his or her next step?
Posted by: davidrlarson | 21 December 2008 at 11:57

Dave,

Likewise, what if another Christian looks into the mirror and says, "I know for certain that I am bisexual," what should be his/her next step?

In either case, my own response would be: Pray about it. Get a second opinion if this has not yet been done. Let him/her re-examine one's assumptions one more time. How did s/he arrive at this conclusion? At least that was what I told my son, after he told me and his mom that he had communicated his concerns to Carrol with regards to his sexual identity. Had he taken into account the power of suggestion? Of social labelling... which might be self-fulfilling?

"Since persons are also constructs of their culture (in this view), we are made into those categories. Hence today persons of course understand themselves as straight or gay (or perhaps bisexual), and it is very difficult to step outside of these categories, even once one comes to see them as the historical constructs they are."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

I'm a clinician and one of the things I learned early on is to take a careful history of each patient, no matter if this had been done previously several times by other professionals who have looked at the same case. I know for a fact how often my professional colleagues and I failed to arrive at a correct diagnosis, or at least came close to it, because we had neglected this most important first step. Review. Truth is, medicine, which includes psychiatry, is not an exact science. Moreover, knowledge increases exponentially everyday so that there are few questions whose answers anybody really knows with absolute certainty.

Elaine,

Would you kindly post a link to the Moir & Jessel, 1991, paper you cited?

On the topic of prenatal and neonatal hormonal influence on gender-related behavior:

"The accumulated evidence to date permits the following preliminary conclusions:

... (c) Comparison of both prenatal androgen excess in 46,XX individuals and prenatal androgen deficiency in 46,XY individuals to control conditions point to androgens as the primary determinant of gender-related behavior. By contrast, prenatal estrogen deficiency seems to be unrelated to behavioral gender differentiation. (d) The decisive role of prenatal androgen is further underlined by dose-response analog studies in CAH children and adults as well as the effects of prenatal suppression of androgen excess in CAH children.

(e) When predicting gender-related behavior of CAH girls and women from the degree of CAH-syndrome severity (which indicates the degree of androgen excess), the addition of the molecular genotype of the defective 21-hydroxylasen gene to the equation does not improve the prediction.

(f) No human evidence exists to date for a role of the neonatal androgen surge in the development of gender-related behavior. (g) While the evidence for prenatal androgens as the primary determinant of gender-related behavior is very strong, gender identity does not seem to be directly affected. Overall, the conclusions raise the question how the status of the androgenization of the brain at birth can be used for a prognosis of gender-identity outcome and guide gender assignment decisions.

- Biopsychosocial Determinants of Gender, Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, Columbia University
Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2006
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_43/ai_n16107852

Rich

Thank you! Yes. It is frustrating to hear such sweeping generalizations. I've often wondered if the less we know about something the more certain and global our comments. Some questions do not admit of any unqualified answer!

With respect to sources of Christian wisdom, I think it neither possible nor desirable to reduce the tensions among the right sources you mention. Instead, it seems that we have to wrestle with these matters on a case-by-case basis, with each other and a willingness to be led by God.

Does this work? "Theological epistemolgy is irreducibly pluralistic. No algorithms!"

Art

I'm not certain I fully understand what you are saying; however, my impression at this point is that you may put more emphasis on choice than I do.

I agree that we can choose what to do; however, I think it much more difficult to choose our sexual orientations.

I do not want to exclude choice entirely; however, I think in most cases its impact is so small as to be neglibible.

But like you say, this doesn't end the discussion. It starts it.

Thanks!

Dave

The whole nexus of the argument is whether homosexuality is a choice or set at birth. Those who feel that it is a choice, will conclude that ipso facto it is a sinful choice.

For those who take the position that it is not a choice, but a core part of one's being, then it as natural for them as heterosexuality is natural and normal for the rest of the population.

I've never met Dr. Stone personally. It is possibe that his homophobia(?)is consequent to reaction formation, that deep down inside, he truly longs to frolic in a secret gay bathhouse with wreckless abandonment. On the other hand, it is just as possible, perhaps moreso, that he is simply doing his job by educating the public about the dangerousness of homosexuality from a public health perspective.

Anyone who wants to take the time to visit the CDC website and do a bit of research on the public health implications of gay sex can do so free of charge. For instance, there you will discover that a few years ago, typhoid fever, which had been virtually eradicated from the USA, was reintroduced into the midsouthern states by a homosexual cabal.

For those interested enough in the subject, required reading is "And the Band Played On'" by Randy Schilts. There you will discover the early days of the AIDS crisis.You can read about the courage of a physician at Stanford who refused to take any more blood from the Irwin Memorial blood bank until protocols were implemented to protect the public. At that time no test for HIV existed; however, there was overwhelming anecdotal evidence that there was an infectious agent in the blood. The blood bank took the position that because no infectious agent had yet been identified, it was premature to screen blood donors. They only took steps after Stanford touched their pocketbook. Because HepB was ubiquitous in the gay community, the bloodbank started screening for that and assumed [correctly] that they could eliminate much of the HIV blood.

From a strictly public health point of view, monogamous gay sex is certainly preferable to multipartner debauchery. One need not be "married" to be monogamous, however.

If Dr. Stone is an infectious disease physician, or in family practice, his concern is certainly understandable. I met one religious fanatic who, even though in the end stage of AIDS, continued having unprotected sex with his wife because using a condom didn't suit him. The poor woman, even though living in modern times, was unaware of the risks involved. Why hadn't she been informed by a responsible physician? Must a physician, in the name of confidentiality, allow a patient to play Russian roulette with a spouse.

Dr. Stone is providing a valuable service by educating people regarding the gay political and social agenda. The public health menace is potentially catastrophic, as AIDS demonstrated. Few people really understand the militancy and deep seated hatred for Jesus prevalent in this community. The wreckless and irresponsible approach to Scripture evinced by gay apologists should convince any Bible student of that. No shot is too cheap, if it furthers the interests of the gay community.

Much of the "scientific" gathered of late regarding their position in society is unreliable because they can lie to investigators about their behaviour. For instance, it was reported in the past that a gay man had X amount of partners in a year. Well, now, because that is unsuitable to the new face of the community , even though the subject had X number of partners, he will report only x number. Any "scientific" data that depends on self reporting should be regarded with suspicion.

EGW, in her treatment of the contest between Elijah and the priests of baal describes how Elijah carefully observed the priests because, provided the opportunity, they would resort to any ruse or deception to advance their cause.

While all homosexuals can not and should not be painted with the same brush, for every responsible gay, there are numerous irresponsible ones. For those struggling with homosexuality, as for those struggling with any inherent weakness, there is hope and forgiveness. Abraham, David, Elijah, none were without sin. None were cast aside because of their sin, even David, who rather than repent, chose to hide his sin. God continued to work with him and brought him to repentance. But at what cost? David's heart was perfect with the lord all his days, except in the matter of Uriah. He was certainly not sinless all his days, but his rebellion in that matter altered his standing with God.

Many gays are just where David was in his rebellion.They will not move off of that spot. It is a dangerous thing to do, to lift up one's hand against the king.

Hi Dave,

I realize that I am being garrulous today, so, just some quick thoughts for now...

Your comment,

>> "... my impression at this point is that
>> you may put more emphasis on choice than I do.

My comment -

I have no other choice... there's no other word to use... "choose you this day whom you will serve" etc., etc.

Did we choose to be created male or female, our "being" from the nano-second that the creative word was spoken?

No.

Or...

Were we created without choice as male and female, our "being" from the nano-secone that the creative word was spoken?

Yes... this is my choice.

Or...

Did we choose to be created heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, our "activity" from the nano-second that the creative word was spoken?

No.

Or...

Were we created without choice as heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, our "activity" from the nano-secone that the creative word was spoken?

No.

Do we choose daily... never... what we "do" with our bodies as heterosexuals, homosexuals or bi-sexuals?

Yes... daily.

If anybody has a "choice," it seems that bi-sexuals definitely win the argument over the no-choicers.

Bi-sexuality is in reality a form of homosexuality, since heterosexuals never "choose" bi-sexuality.

Your comment -

>> I agree that we can choose what to do;
>> however, I think it much more difficult
>> to choose our sexual orientations.

My comment -

Is the bi-sexual having a difficult time choosing a sexual orientation, or is it just sin that is finding an outlet any which way it can... male or female or both?

Your comment -

>> I do not want to exclude choice entirely;
>> however, I think in most cases
>> its impact is so small as to be negligible.

My comment -

Does choosing to be bi-sexual, homosexual or heterosexual have a big or small impact on society?

Big.

Can we choose how to impact society or not?

Yes.

Is it written in our DNA how we will "be?"

Yes.

Is choice a factor or not?

No.

Is it written in our DNA how we will conduct ourselves?

No.

Is choice a factor or not, despite our DNA?

Yes.

Is it written in the stars how we will "be", as the neo-pagans believe?

No.

Is it written in the stars how we will also "conduct" ourselves, as the neo-pagans believe?

No.

Is choice a factor or not?

Yes... even though astrology is bunk.

Astrology is relevant to a small degree because it purports to incorporate theories about our "original genesis" and also impacts society about the consequences of our choices.

Your comment -

>> "... this doesn't end the discussion.
>> It starts it."

As Gov. Sarah Palin might say, "you betcha."

So... until later, Dave.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hansen

I don't know Doctor Stone either. At best I find his vulgar reports irrelevant because no one in this conversation condones the conduct he condemns.

You write: "Must a physician, in the name of confidentiality, allow a patient to play Russian roulette with a spouse?"

The answer to this question is "No." I think that a very old case, Tarasof v. University of California, is interesting in this regard. It's on the Internet.

Thanks!

Dave

Elaine,
Kudos to you for mentioning the latest info ... tonight was the premier of the National Geographic channel's new show "In the Womb: Identical Twins" which I just finished watching. I highly recommend it. It discussed how hormones, nutrients, and chemicals etc in utero affect the difference between DNA-identical twin babies. Epigenes and genomes vary between DNA-identical twins, for instance. Also, one of the identical twins can suffer a genetic disease and the other may not. The same goes with being oriented as a homosexual; the identical twins may or may not be of the same orientation, as in one specific set of twins they presented in the show.

Art,
I wrote: "You write that God created us 'male' and 'female.' My question - Did God create hermaphrodites? Who gets to decide who a hermaphrodite can marry, you?"
You responded: "Heather, are you implicitly suggesting that your creator is the etiology of hermaphroditism and homosexuality... and heterosexuality... and if it 'feels right' then get married with whomever makes you feel like a man... a woman... or both...?"

1. I believe God created hermaphrodites, just as God created every human who exists based on Job 31:15 "Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?" and Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
2. I did not say I believe God intended from the first week of Creation for any human to be born a hermaphrodite. I believe it's all guess-work; the Bible does not address it.
3. I am do not say God did not intend bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual orientations; it's all theory and not specified in the Bible.
4. Although there are couples who choose to marry entirely based on feelings, I do not believe that is the best way to make a life-long committment. [But starting out on the wrong foot does not prevent good from coming out of a carelessly-planned union.]
5. I believe in monogamous, committed relationships; whether or not there is attraction is none of my business, though I would think the Song of Solomon is presenting the ideal lovers to possess mutual attraction. I promote the idea that bisexuals and homosexuals should decide if they want to enter into monogamous and committed relationships, with whomever they believe suits them best.
6. I am opposed to promiscuity.

You forgot to answer my question - Who gets to decide who a hermaphrodite can marry, you? I say, let them choose.

I do believe God gave us the responsibility to make good decisions even if we don't feel like it and that we choose what we say and how we use our bodies, etc. On that, we agree.

You asked: "Did God really, truly and without ambiguity say that humankind was made in his image and likeness... and only male and female? This is what I mean about 'original genesis' helping in understanding divisive issues."
And you write: "Heather, are you saying that 'be fruitful and multiply' (original intent) does NOT imply ONLY heterosexual activity as your creator originally intended?"

Are you saying that you believe God originally was planning for only males and females to be on our planet, and that they would all be meant to "be fruitful and multiply?" Let's say that is true, and that if they had not sinned, they would have all had eternal life. Do you really believe the earth can contain that many people, over thousands of years? Or do you think God would have limited the seed of a woman or a man, to limit the number of humans on the planet? Eventually, though, don't we end up with an awfully overpopulated earth, even if each female only birthed one baby each? That can not possibly be what a sinless planet looks like - overpopulated. Or maybe you believe that God would have let them relocate to other planets? Or eventually infertile humans would be born? I think we can all agree, the account in Genesis leaves a lot for speculation and the imagination.

When you say that the creation story teaches us 1) that "male and female" are made in God's image and 2) God's intent was for only heterosexual activitiy to occur because of "be fruitful and multiply" and 3) that homosexuality is a result of the sin/fall of humanity, I wonder, how is it that you do not address the Second Creation story's account of human sexuality and gender?

On the one hand, the First Creation story says God creates male and female in God's image, simultaneously blessing them, telling them to "be fruitful and multiply," to subdue and rule the earth. And then God tells them God has given them every plant yielding seed on the earth to be food for them. (Gen 1:27-29)

On the other hand, the Second Creation story mentions nothing about anybody being made in God's image, says God puts Adam in the garden of Eden "to cultivate it and keep it" and tells him to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And then after Adam names the animals, observing that they pair up, God forms Eve from Adam's rib. After they both eat the fruit, are scolded by God, then, outside the Garden of Eden, they have sex and Eve births Cain, then Abel. (Gen 2:8 to Gen 4:2)

The two stories do not place sexuality or gender in the same order; the first puts sexuality at the beginning right along with the command to rule over the creatures of the earth and what to eat; the Second Creation story puts human sexuality after Adam has observed animal coupling, finding that he is alone in comparison to them, and after the fall. And only the first includes a command to "be fruitful and multiply." Only the first mentions being created in God's image.

I believe the two different stories of Creation are equally important, equally filled with meaning, and intentionally kept separate. I disagree with you combining the lesson of the fall of humanity from the Second Creation story (in which you assume the entrance of "sin" is where we get hermaphrodites and homosexuality) with the decrees God gives in the First Creation story (that we are made in God's image and should "be fruitful and multiply").

So, yes, carefully observing the order of the first two accounts of human sexuality and gender is going to affect what we think God's original intentions were for human sexuality. We can agree the original intention was for Adam and Eve to obey.

About the whole false dichotomy thing ... your "or" says that everything we do can be either condemned or blessed by God. If that is not what you meant, then perhaps I did not read it correctly. If this is the case, I take the blame. :)
Looking forward to your answer to my question - Who gets to decide which gender a hermaphrodite can marry? Or are they not allowed to marry, what do you think?

I wonder if we were debating heterosexuality here, if we would get the same degree of debate.

Please be mindful that Gay people look at this and realize why there left the church.
Noel who thinks you all need some lessons in manners.

Further more to my post. I for one do not see this as a healthy debate. (Debate is something to behold)
It tears down and does not lift up anyone here.

I am not an object to be debated on, tossed around until you think you have come up with the right answer. I am human with all the feelings you all have.

You have made me very sad to see how you all react to something that is different.
Noel

Noel

Thank you for giving us some feedback as to the hurtfulhness of this discussion on you and perhaps others.

I'm certain everyone joins me in apologizing for the pain we have caused.

I don't think we should stop discussing very important issues like these; however, as you say, we should do so in a way that "lifts up" rather than "tears down."

Sometimes we know that the tone of the discussion is not what it should be and we try to correct things, all of us trying to help each other in this regard.

But on other occasions we may hurt people without realizing it. This is when we need most feedback from others.

Again, thank you for providing this.

Dave

For those who take the position that it is not a choice, but a core part of one's being, then it as natural for them as heterosexuality is natural and normal for the rest of the population.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 22 December 2008 at 3:02

Elaine,

I believe that there's more normal variations in human sexuality than can be bracketed by the binary of either straight or gay. I agree with the thought expressed by Dave with regards to a case-by-case approach.

It should be clear by now why understanding human sexual development, especially the formation one's sexual identity, has occupied my attention. There's so much research material presented in one journal alone on a single topic that making a selection of what to read is so overwhelming. Just to give an example from one publication:

Most Recent Articles from Journal of Sex Research
July-Sept 2008

Sexual practices of gay, bisexual, and other nonidentified MSM attending New York City gyms: patterns of serosorting, strategic positioning, and context selection
by Perry N. Halkitis

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_45?tag=content;col1

Hi Heather,

You wrote,

>> Are you saying that you believe God
>> originally was planning for
>> only males and females
>> to be on our planet,...

My comment -

Are you saying that you believe in a "whatever will be will be" God (que sera sera - whatever will be will be - the future's not ours to see - que sera sera), and that his "original intent" was NOT only for male and female to be "fruitful and multiply" and populate the earth?

Are you saying that your creator's "original intent" included hermaphroditism, homosexuality, bi-sexuality AND heterosexuality in male and female so that eventually, sometime down the line... "whatever will be will be"

Choice is a different matter at this point of the question, except maybe for the bi-sexual... but who knows, "whatever will be will be, right?

I do not believe in a "whatever will be will be" creator... do you?

By extrapolation from "in the beginning God...," the whole universe was created for "US", not the angels, and God would make each planet habitable as needed... and if not, "it's an awful waste of space," to quote "Contact," the movie.

And just as the angels witnessed our creation, we would have witnessed the habitability of the planets as the "Great Architect" prepared our new homes to meet our needs... as needed.

What a wonderful forever God originally intended for us... but a corrupting influence changed his personal forever choice for us.

However, "in Christ we are a new creation," and the resurrection of Jesus is our Creator's visible assurance to us that there is truly "life after death"... only by resurrection... (not reincarnation and not during death), and as Jesus breathed again and rose from death... so will we.

We are talking, are we not, about the SAME God who said "let us make man in our image ... let them rule ... male and female he created them ... and God said to [only 2 of] them, be fruitful and multiply ... fill the earth ... subdue it ... and rule ..." [and I'll build you another dwelling place next door when this one is full].

You ask a practical and real world question in your last paragraph -

>> "... Looking forward to your answer to my question -
>> Who gets to decide
>> which gender a hermaphrodite can marry?
>> Or are they not allowed to marry, what do you think?"

My comment -

I hope the humor comes through here...

So, you do believe in "choice" after all, huh? The question is who chooses/decides?

If society (us) decides that "marriage" is only between male and female, and if society (us) decides that legal unions between male/male, female/female are to be finally main stream and acceptable after thousands of years of not being in the main stream, well, that society's choice, not God's.

The lyrics to the song “Que Sera Sera” are meaningful in the intended context of the original song because we don’t know about tomorrow, be we can know the ONLY ONE who knows tomorrow today, right?

(que sera sera - whatever will be will be - the future's not ours to see - que sera sera)

Thanks for a great question Heather

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Art and Heather,

This new book does not deal with intersexuality, so here's a link to an informative review on the subject you may want to read. Let me just quote briefly from its summary:

... currently available human sexuality textbooks often provide relatively basic biological information about intersexed conditions, convey relatively negative attitudes toward the intersexed, and rarely speak to the psychological experience of the intersexual person. This is where the video Hermaphrodites Speak! becomes a valuable resource for instructors of human sexuality courses. After seeing this video, viewers get a sense of the anger and frustration of the intersexed people directed at the medical community.

Hermaphrodites Speak! - Review - movie review
Journal of Sex Research, August, 2000 by BJ Rye

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_/ai_68273932?tag=artBody;...

Hi Noel Thorpe,
I am sorry you feel very sad after reading this dialogue. I am mindful that people leave the SDA church because of our policies about homosexuality, which is one reason I believe it is valid to discuss this. I do not want anyone to feel like they have to leave the SDA church because it is too frustrating or painful or unfair. I want our church to be a healthy environment that is a safe place for diverse types of people.
It is good to learn to be polite, to listen, and to allow others to feel respected even if we differ on our views. Open dialogue has the potential to help us socially, emotionally and to challenge our brains.
I hope that there are at least a few statements on here that you feel lift you up as equal to all of us, because there are several of us sincerely promoting your validity. :)

Joselito,
Thank you for the link. When intersexed people share their horrific stories, we all learn.

"Few people really understand the militancy and deep seated hatred for Jesus prevalent in this community. The wreckless and irresponsible approach to Scripture evinced by gay apologists should convince any Bible student of that. No shot is too cheap, if it furthers the interests of the gay community."

Such comments are very offensive to Noel and others. It is rather doubtful that the community you speak of has more than a passing knowledge of Scripture; and that most of their information has not been derived from their own reading, but the lives, actions, and intolerance, even hatred shown them by Bible-quoting people who call themselves Christian.

No less than Rick Warren, who says that he loves both gays and straights, has compared homosexuality to pediphilia and incest. It is such disparaging, even despicable remarks that should rightfully anger all Christians and non-Christians who believe in equal rights and tolerance shown to others. It is no different than comparing all heterosexual relationships as pimps or prostitutes. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule of treating others as you would wish to be treated? Would you enjoy such hateful and mean remarks thrust at you if you were a Christian in a largely Muslim population? Why must Christians be so spiteful in both their speech and actions?

Yes, bigotry is born of ignorance. The more one knows people who are gay, even has family members who are, and has seen the faces of those who are treated worse than dirt because of their inborn identity, should look at themselves in the mirror and see if they are free of sin.

If the church cannot accept monogamous marriages of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, then it is making a public statement that no sinners need apply. Welcome to empty pews. The "Holier than thou" attitude is what is so reprehensible to those on the outside looking in and has caused more atheists than we will ever know.

I am a straight old lady, my children are, too. But they all have gay friends, are acquaintances and some have seen the bullying and hurt, even suicide that has been caused by others harassing someone who was even thought to be gay. I would never enter the church doors of such a denomination that excluded anyone. God help us to realize that Jesus is not exclusive.
We should be ashamed to take the name of Christian, while at the same time excoriating and excluding anyone.

Art,
Your response was in the terms of male and female categories, but my question is about hermaphrodites who do not fit into either category - they partially fit into both categories. I'm wondering who you think should decide who a hermaphrodite can marry (ie: their pastor, their doctor, their parent, each hermaphrodite themselves, etc)? What does your Bible-based worldview tell you? I'm not referencing the legal aspect at all nor what society thinks.
Let's say the hermaphrodite was the first known born on an island in Micronesia and they did not have TV or the internet, but they did have you and your family as their missionaries. And let's say they asked for your advice.
Since our Bible-based worldviews differ, I am curious if yours informs you differently on the topic of hermaphrodite marriages/unions than mine does.
What would your advice be?

Joselito and Heather point out a very important issue for me. I am an intersexed person who lives as a female and identifies as lesbian. I could just as well identify as a straight male since I have 46XY genotype but have a decreased ability to respond to androgens. But I was raised female and choose to live that way.

By the way, I prefer the term Intersexed when referring to hermaphrodites because Intersex does not have all the sensational, negative and pathological connotations. When referring to the medical conditions, it is more correct to use the term "disorders of sexual differentiation". This has a close parallel to the GLBT community preferring the terms gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender to the term homosexual, which comes with a great deal of baggage.

Having said all that. I don't think that the experience of the intersexed is all that different from those who don't experience a disorder of sexual differentiation. In fact I consider my experience with gender identity and sexual orientation to be reflected in the experiences of many of my GLBT friends and my lesbian partner.

I believe we can't discount the effect of genetics, hormones, psychological and social factors on gender and sexual orientation.

Joselito points out studies that show the effect of Androgens on gender identify development with Androgen excess in 46XX individuals and Androgen deficit in 46XY individuals. The role of hormones, especially androgens, on gender identity (and by extension sexual orientation) is being well established in the scientific community. The role of genetics is not well understood at this time but there are suggestions from twin studies that there may be some link.

Psychologically we know that same gender sexual orientation is remarkably durable and affected by how an individual can integrate their sexual orientation with their beliefs and cultural context. It seems that those who receive the most support and acceptance seem to be more stable and better adjusted psychologically. This really puts into doubt the idea that church is a psychologically healthy environment for GLBT people if the church doesn’t support a psychologically healthy decision to enter a committed relationship. I think that Elaine puts it most forcefully. You cannot claim to love people and at the same time insist that they live a life that is psychologically damaging.

"You cannot claim to love people and at the same time insist that they live a life that is psychologically damaging."

But isn't this exactly what the church does when it says that the only way that a homosexual person can be accepted is if they lead a celibate life for their entire lifetime! Can there be another explanation?

Priests and nuns take celibacy vows by their choice. It seems that celibacy is still based on Augustine's view that it is the highest of all possible lifestyles. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that expresses that position; in fact, Paul says it it better to "marry than to burn." Does that apply only to heterosexuals? Or, does it ostracize homosexuals from the human race by denying them a monogamous relationship forever?

Carlitas

A profoundly touching story. Aren't we glad, God not man has to decide the trouble we humans created in handing dominion over earth to Satan. Arn't we glad, Christ won it back and is coming soon.

In the meantime, I think Dave Larsen put the best face on the matter. I have worked with many kinds of congenital anomolies.

The physical problems are much easier to correct, much easier and to accept. I find your situation least common and most difficult. I know of one couple who dressed their child as a boy in the morning and as a girl in the afternoon. I shudder to think of the adult life of that person.

Back when I was active in the SDA church it cost about $800.00 to bring one convert to baptism. It must cost twice that now. I believe the Church is correct on same sex behavior/church membership, but incorrect in it limited outreach to people in pain of any kind. I think that is what Dave is saying. I negatively react to the recrutiment tactics of some homosexuals and promiscuity of any sort. I use the term abnormal in its statistical sense. I believe in the transformating power of God, not the conforming posture of the Church. Tom

"I negatively react to the recrutiment tactics of some homosexual...."

As do all respectable people.

Can recruitment cause a heterosexual person to suddenly become homosexual, or to choose homosexual behavior? Do heterosexuals seek to recruit when they ask for a date from the opposite sex? What, exactly, is correctly called "recruiting"? I have known young men who were "propositioned" and found it repulsive. Is that is what is considered as recruiting? Either hetero or homo actively recruiting for sex, are reprehensible, as is promiscuity. However, hetero promiscuity is way ahead of homo due to the larger number of the former group. Hedonistic sexual practices is not confined to either group, but to insinuate that the homosexual community represents it in extreme is not accurate as they represent no more than 10% of the population.

Elaine,

I agree that it is more than unreasonable, it can be dangerous, to force someone like myself to live in a way that is inconsistent with the very core of who we are. I understand that this might seem overly dramatic to some, but it is the truth.

Tom,

I don't want to leave the impression that my experience is special in any way, except that it is mine and that makes it important to me. As a member of the GLBT speakers bureau at my University, and previously a member of a GLBT chorus, I have had heard many personal stories. Most of these personal stories mirrored my own except that I can point to a specific medical condition and they cannot. Otherwise we have experienced much of the same shame, name calling, confusion and lack of understanding. We share the same stories of gender non-conformity and messages that we are not good, that there is something wrong with us.

I fear that whatever the church invests in reaching GLBT people, it is a wasted investment unless the church can support a GLBT person’s decision to be responsible and live in a psychologically healthy, monogamous relationship.

Carlitas

I certainly don't have the answers. I guess the Church doesn't either.

My experience is totally different: On the one hand aggressive recruitment and the other a neighbor and colleague and friends. As well as several don't ask don't tell acquaintances in church.

It is the agressiveness and the in your face attitude of so many in the street today--that brings out the worst on both sides. A sorry place to leave a conversation. Tom

Hi again Heather,

Thanks for the opportunity to again define and defend our "original genesis" and the biblical presupposition of the "original intent" of our creator.

All of my responses have started with the biblical presupposition of our "original genesis" and "original intent" and build from there.

The answers to all of your questions about all of the issues that concern modern society (us) all start with your creator and his point of view...

... and if not, then where do (should?) the answers come from?

Since modern medicine and science deal with the "results" of sin in the human body and mind, spirit and soul and not with sin itself, God's "original intent" and our "original genesis" will always be in conflict with societal efforts to separate humanity from sin and its consequences.

The really BIG consequence is death of course, ultimately. However, on the way to the "BIG D" we are daily experiencing dying.

In the same sense that every individual experiences dying daily until the ultimate day of death, humanity is also experiencing dying.

It does not matter if a person accepts the Genesis account of creation and the fall, death does not take a holiday.

The day, in fact, the very nano-second that Adam and Eve sinned... they died... it just took a few hundred years of the daily dying process to reveal the reality of their own death to them.

Adam and Eve were not less human because they sinned, they were simply sinners... who experienced the wages of sin, death.

Disease does not make a male or a female less human, it just makes us sick. Some are sick one way, some are sick another way... and sin makes us all sick and die... that's just the way it is.

To deny that sin has affected the human body in a way that is contrary to the "original intent" of our creator from our "original genesis" is to deny the foundation to our existence and to understand how sin has infected and affected the human body and how modern medicine and science can deal with it.

My "Que Sera Sera" phrase in the previous post ("que sere sera, whatever will be will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera sera") is in response to the view that uses words that are designed to coerce dialogue because...

>> we are the way we are because that is the way we are...
>> and don't you dare say I am "sick" because that is not kind...
>> and if you have not experienced homosexuality or hermaphroditism...
>> just keep your biblical view to yourself...
>> because God did not create us only male and female...
>> and my view is that science is on my side of the issue so far...
>> so don't hurt my feelings if I choose to conduct myself
>> in a way that is contrary to what some Christians say
>> is God's point of view on the subject of our "original genesis" as male and female and heterosexuality... and homosexuality... and bi-sexuality... and hermaphroditism - also called inter-sexuality...

Heather, you have asked me a specific question about hermaphroditism and have asked me to define and defend my view, but you do not define and defend your view about hermaphroditism, nor have you answered any of my previous questions to you about our "original genesis" and the "original intent" of your creator.

The onus for defining and defending is on you and you point of view, my internet friend.

Your question about the current societal issue of hermaphroditism and who decides if they can marry is a side bar type of question... i.e., it concerns a specific societal response to a specific physical result of sin and death.

You asked -

>> I'm wondering who you think should decide
>> who a hermaphrodite can marry
>> (ie: their pastor, their doctor, their parent, each hermaphrodite themselves, etc)?

>> What does your Bible-based worldview tell you?
>>I'm not referencing the legal aspect at all nor what society thinks.

>> Let's say the hermaphrodite was
>> the first known born on an island in Micronesia and
>> they did not have TV or the internet,
>> but they did have you and your family as their missionaries.
>> And let's say they asked for your advice.
>> Since our Bible-based worldviews differ,
>> I am curious if yours informs you differently
>> on the topic of hermaphrodite marriages/unions than mine does.
>> What would your advice be?

Here is my previous answer -

>> If society (us) decides that "marriage"
>> is only between male and female,
>> and if society (us) decides that legal unions
>> between male/male, female/female
>> are to be finally main stream and acceptable
>> after thousands of years
>> of not being in the main stream,
>> well, that society's choice, not God's.

In other words, if society (us) passes laws that say hermaphrodites may... can... should be allowed... to marry, well that is the choice of society (us), not God's choice, since he created us male and female without sin with the "original intent" of conducting ourselves in a heterosexual manner to "be fruitful and multiply" to fill the earth.

There's no other way to "fill" the earth... is there?

Finally, the onus (burden of proof) is on the view that says that God's point of view about our "original genesis" as only male and female should not, does not, can not, will not (better not) alter my point of view because I am the way I am, and if less than 2% of world society is other than heterosexual, well, that's just the way it is and the other 98% better not deny me my human rights because I believe that "whatever will be will be" and God made us to be what we are.

Well, that's about it for now...

As I said at the top, thanks for the opportunity to again define and defend our "original genesis" Heather... yes, you are my internet "friend" and I truly mean these next words...

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Elaine, For the sake of the discussion, I was willing to grant that David and Jonathan were gay. It was not relevant because neither David or Jonathan are held up as models of sinlessness. Closer investigation of Scripture is always rewarding, so I decided to examine your position more closely.

You have offered as proof [of homoeroticism] the text that says David and Jonathan kissed each other (1 Sam. 20:41). David was also involved in kissing incidents with Samuel, (1 Sam. 10:1) and Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:39). Absalom kissed many of the men who sought him out (2 Sam. 15:5). When Joab stabbed Amasa to death, he first took him by the beard to kiss him (2. Sam. 20:9). All of these passages employ the same word in the LXX. It’s fairly obvious that this was an acceptable way for men to show affection without any homoerotic implication. This same word is used several times in the NT. You can trace its use there by looking at Strong’s # 2705.

Of course the Judas kiss is the most well known. We also see Mary kissing the feet of Jesus. More to the point, we see Jesus admonishing Simon who gave him no kiss (Lk 7:45). Do you suggest that Jesus expected a homoerotic show of affection form Simon and rebuked him for not bringing it forth? That is where the kind of interpretation methods you employ lead. The prodigal, being kissed by his father after a long separation, best captures the reuniting of David and Jonathan (Lk. 15:20).

I like the LXX English rendering of 1 Sam. 20:17: “And Jonathan swore yet again to David, because he loved the soul of him that loved him.” Of course the word used there is the same root word used in the passages referring to the relationship between Jesus and John. Do you see where the interpretation methods you employ lead? Are you sure you want to go down that path? Do you understand why I consider the work of some gay advocates, such as yourself, reckless and irresponsible?

Blessings,
I want to thank most of you for dialogue on the subject at hand.
As a person who knows first hand what it is like being spoken about on a Sabbath morning by a pastor's uncaring tongue and never returning to the house of Adventism, but on occasions, I thank you.
Yes I am the front for a lot of stories in Australia and those stories are not Once a upon a time stories and most of the stories are not happy ever after stories.
Yes I cared for people(because of Kinship) who have been thrown out of a so called caring church.
I am also thankful for those who are trying to make a difference, because with out you the church would be a cold place.

I am not sure whether David or Jonathan were Gay or not.
But I think we miss the point of a Love that saw nothing wrong in each other. No flaws no mistakes both Loved each other. How great the story is.
Can two people Love each other that much, with out sex. I think people can.
We are told to Love one another with all our differences!!

So at this Christmas/New Year time, let's all sow a little peace and good will as we go - and as we do so, may we each make a difference to our differing worlds in 2009 and beyond.
Noel

Hi Art,
I'm sorry, but I am confused by your comments. How about you give me a numbered list of any questions you want me to answer? Then I will know for sure what was a straightforward question and what was your humor.

Does anyone know...?

This is a great question -

>> Question: Does anyone know -
>> do bi-sexuals
>> have a choice
>> in their nature
>> and thus their behavior?

Thank you
Posted by: Gerhard Haas (not verified) | 18 December 2008 at 8:08
_____________________

This is a GREAT question, because it focuses on the "original genesis" point of view of our biology.

If we get it wrong here, we get it wrong all the way down the line of the discussion about normal and abnormal sexuality...

A separate issue is the "effects" of sin on a fallen and thus no longer "perfect" humanity (and then the consequent human conduct) and what is normal sexuality and abnormal bi-sexuality.

Not being a medical scientist or biologist or a scholar on the subject of aberrant sexuality, I have a layman's question,

>> Does anyone know
>> if bi-sexuals
>> have a "choice"
>> in their DNA
>> and "thus their behavior"

My layman's understanding of where science is concerning the DNA double-helix is limited to what I read by educated experts.

How does the union of two separate living entities, the female egg and the male sperm, transfer "life / existence" to a new creation?

How...? Only God knows, right? To know is to be God.

Does anyone have a "choice" in how many X & Y chromosomes they will have as a cytoplast in a single cell, then as an embryo?

No, right?

Unless one believes in reincarnation after death instead of resurrection after and from death, what choice does one have?

So, final question...

Does anyone know if DNA "determines" conduct?

We "know" DNA determines "being" (biology), but the question is does DNA determine normal AND abnormal sexuality?

We "know" that DNA determines normal biology... and abnormal biology because of the negative effects of sin, but does DNA "determine" conduct, normal AND abnormal?

Starting with our "original genesis" and extrapolating from "in the beginning, God..." it is my layman's understanding that the answer is NO, DNA does NOT "determine" conduct, otherwise there would NEVER have been sin... ever.

And, associated with this conclusion is, DNA does NOT "determine" conduct, otherwise there would ONLY be heterosexuality... but sin changed God's forever choice for us.

So it seems to me...

Does anyone here know more than what God has already revealed to us about our "original genesis" and his "original intent" for us?

____________________

Hansen, I appreciate your clear explanation and the gentle way you expressed what absolutely must be expressed -

>> Do you see where
>> the interpretation methods you employ lead?
>> Are you sure you want to go down that path?
>> Do you understand why
>> I consider the work of some gay advocates,
>> such as yourself,
>> reckless and irresponsible?

Posted by: Hansen (not verified) | 23 December 2008 at 9:40

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hi Heather,

Pick any point you want to define and defend...

On 2nd thought -

How about the 2 creation accounts and how you think they should determine our understanding of our "original genesis" and the "original intent" of our creator from the nano-second the creative word was spoken and we came to "be" as we are?

Defining and defending a belief involves more than simply expressing a belief.

I liked your articulation of the 2 creation accounts, and I am simply asking that you peel away at the layers of this onion, so to speak.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

"Since modern medicine and science deal with the "results" of sin in the human body and mind, spirit and soul and not with sin itself, God's "original intent" and our "original genesis" will always be in conflict with societal efforts to separate humanity from sin and its consequences."

The writers of the Hebrew Bible were intent on explaining the world as they knew it, and because thorns, thistles, hard work, and death were all they had ever known, they attributed it to sin. No one heard God's pronouncement, did they? How can anyone today proclaim exactly all the "consequences" of sin when there is no real idea of a perfect world at some time in the distant past.

We know today what a beautiful normal baby looks like and when one is born with some defect or anomaly, it is often instantly recognized; but sometimes not until years later. IOW, we have the "ideal" baby for comparison.

With the "ideal" world pictured in a wonderful primeval garden, no one was there who wrote about it later; in fact, it was several thousand years later before it was written. So, to postulate everything distasteful as "sin" is to decide based on what is disliked or even seen as tragic to our sensibilities.

"Sin" is the catchall for everything we see as "
"bad" and what we declare as "bad" is often the natural results of life. Is it "bad" to die? Not for many old people who look forward to being relieved of pain or lonliness. Automobile accidents causing death is also bad, but is always due to a natural cause, whether road conditions are someone's terrible misjudgment. Calling it "sin" seems to lessen the personal responsible that result from our living in this world.

Also, the desire to live forever seems a magical dream, but why? People are paying huge sums to be "frozen" in hopes they can be "resurrected" at some future date: a date with a different world, no friends or loved ones? Is that something to be eagerly awaited?

Even if there is no life after death, it's been a wonderful life and it's much like going to blissful sleep after a long and busy day. Tennyson said it well--to go with his fathers and lie down in restful sleep. Death holds no dread or fear for me who is probably closer than anyone reading this. Serenity is accepting what we cannot change and having the wisdom to realize that it is something we cannot change.

The role of hormones, especially androgens, on gender identity (and by extension sexual orientation) is being well established in the scientific community....
Posted by: Carlitas | 22 December 2008 at 10:18

Carlitas,

Frankly, I don't know whether that's true or not, especially since research on human sexual orientation, including animal studies, are based on presumed natural categories by each investigator. What is natural? I believe there's more normal variations with regards to human sexuality than we can find in the scientific literature. Instead of the binary masculine/feminine, for example, how about masculinities/femininities? Sexualities.

Resorting to scientific explanations to achieve equal rights for LGBT, IMO, is a futile exercise.

No other minority group has made such an appeal to biology as the basis for equal rights. The underlying issue is realizing respect for gay and lesbian lives rather than concern with the basis of this sexual orientation. The issue of gay rights is ultimately political and not scientific.

-Book review
Journal of Sex Research, August, 2000 by Bertram J. Cohler
The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. By Edward Stein. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 388 pages. Cloth, $35.00.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_/ai_68273927?tag=artBody;...

California is in the forefront of this battle. The state Attorney General concluded he cannot defend Proposition 8. As determined by the California Supreme Court, Article 1 guarantees all Californians basic liberty, which explicitly includes the basic human right to marry. He said, "There are certain rights that are not subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty"

To do so, would be "tyranny of the majority" something that is absolutely contrary to the constitution that is established to protect minority human rights. Supporters of Proposition 8 are trying everything they can to deny their fellow citizens an established fundamental right--not a special right. The majority shuld never have an opportunity to legislate the basic rights of minorities.

Elaine, You should be held accountable for your abuse of Scripture. Some of your social commentary is also poorly conceived. You refer to Rick Warren and his remark comparing gays with pedophiles and incest.

Gays have, for a long time, used pedophiles as their whipping boys, attempting to distinguish themselves from those "horrible child molesters." I was personally acquainted with one of the RC priests who scandalized Los Angeles and went to prison. As far as I know, all of his victims were young boys. or young men. None had reached the legal age of consent. Such was the case in nearly all of the legal proceedings. These were crimes by men against boys. There was a definite homosexual component to nearly every case. So Rick Warren is not fantasizing. Nearly all of the crimes committed involved homosexual predation.

During my work in the gay community, I would, from time to time, encounter men in their very early or mid twenties with end stage AIDS. From seroconversion to AIDS in those days took about 10 years, give or take. That means that a man of 24 was exposed to HIV when he was 12 or 14. I won't elaborate on the most likely scenario for exposure due to your, no doubt, sensitive nature. I can assure you, however, that if it were your son, you wouldn't approve.

Contrary to your obvious misunderstanding of the community, a significant number of PWAs had knowledge of Jesus and the Bible. They came from many denominations, including SDA. One of the most vile individuals I met was a LLU graduate and physician. He spent his time drunk, hiding from the police with a few months to live. Another was the son of a Baptist minister. Roman Catholics, JWs, Southern Baptists were among the people I encountered. Many gays have rejected Jesus and the Bible and are virulent in their hatred of both.

So while you may fantasize about the homosexual community, I can assure you, from the perspective of someone who was involved with scores of AIDS patients on the front lines of the AIDS crisis, a significant number of them were sociopathic types who, in addition to being gay, were drug abusers, criminals, liars, and thieves. In brief, they were not Christians and rejected the values of Christian faith.

I saw very few of the sensitive, artistic, whimsical types that exist primarily in your imagination. Sure they do exist. And for those struggling against hoemeroticism, they should have the support of the community of faith.

Hansen,
You discuss me and take leave of my intelligence.
You have no idea.
To seroconvert in the early eighties took around one to four years, not 10 as you think.

"So while you may fantasize about the homosexual community, I can assure you, from the perspective of someone who was involved with scores of AIDS patients on the front lines of the AIDS crisis, a significant number of them were sociopathic types who, in addition to being gay, were drug abusers, criminals, liars, and thieves. In brief, they were not Christians and rejected the values of Christian faith."

I don't fantasise, you do.
I don't think you were ever on the front line as most Adventists kept away.
I only know of one Adventist in the early eighties that took an interest and a Hospital (ADVENTIST) that had a ward for Aids people because of money from the Government of the day.
Most Adventists were there to scorn, not help.

It's types like you who push people to away from Christianity.
Noel

I have no need to be educated about AIDS or pedophilia. My roommate for 60 years was a forensic pathologist, having done more then 10,000 autopsies, so I was not born yesterday.

However, I do know, as others should, that all gays are not into pedophilia or pederasty anymore than all homosexuals are not engaged in regular visits to prostitutes.

The statement made by Rick Warren was his own statement, and he should be reprimanded for it.
If those who are so sanctimoniusly characterizing all gays as behaving in criminal behavior, then it is you who need to realize that the large majority of both gays and heterosexuals are living quiet, normal lives devoid of such promiscuous, even criminal behavior. Painting with such a broad brush trivializes anything you might otherwise say.

My granddaughter lives next door to two gentlemen who are gay and have been the best of neighbors for many years. Surely, to equate heterosexuals with the many-married celebrities given publicity says nothing at all about the quiet, happily married couples who do not live flamboyant lives.

How can anyone who has a friend, child, or close relative, known since childhood who is now gay, can declare that they are pedophiles, promiscuous, or worse?

I was working in the largest hospital in 1980 in my town when the first AIDS patient was hospitalized with what was then called Kaposi's sarcoma. I knew immediately his diagnosis, as all pathology reports passed directly through my office. He was the son of the most prominent pastor in town.
He died, eventually, but not before the entire town was changed, due to his father, and wife who ever since then has worked diligently to educate the public on AIDS and to remove the horrible stigma from gays. (Are churches promoting clean needle exchanges or free condoms?) It was the only Christian thing to do: care for the sick and dying, and remove the terrible burden society had placed upon them.

For those who wish to embrace Jesus' attitude, it would be most difficult to even imagine him saying anything so derogatory or judgmental as has been expressed here. It is always the pattern to isolate the "other" from those who feel so certain and secure that they represent the "right" which continues the "us vs. them" syndrome for which Christianity has been long recognized. What are you doing to change the public's thinking about what Jesus would do? If such an attitude conforms with that idea of Jesus, please spare me, I won't nothing to do with such Christian hypocrisy.

Noel, bless you. Love knows no boundaries.

When two people stand before the altar and take their vows to "love, honor and cherish, in sickness and health...." do the well-wishers immediately think of their sexual intimacy? Or, do they hope they continue to have a loving marriage, devoted to the other?

Now, if those happen to be of the same sex, there is an entirely different image in everyone's mind, isn't there? It's all about SEX and nothing else.

Why is it so difficult to realize that two people can love and wish to live with someone for life with all the burdens, joys, and sorrows it might bring? Oh, that's only if they are of opposite sex. It's sinful to think of loving the same sex person in the same way! Maybe those people should follow Origen or Tertullian's actions, or what was forced upon Abelard: that's the ultimate cure for "burning with lust." Except that it did not end Abelard's & Heloise' love.

Job's Lament... God Questions Job

With respectful deference to a dignified lady who is definitely senior to most of us reading and contributing to this blog page, I can only respond with the words of others who are wiser and senior to all of us...

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 23 December 2008 at 4:02

>> No one heard God's pronouncement, did they?
>> How can anyone today proclaim exactly
>> all the "consequences" of sin
>> when there is no real idea of
>> a perfect world
>> at some time
>> in the distant past.

>> Sin" is the catchall for
>> everything we see as "bad" and
>> what we declare as "bad"
>> is often the natural results of life.
>> Is it "bad" to die?
>> Not for many old people who look forward
>> to being relieved of pain or lonliness.

Response by Job 1:5 -

>> ... Job said, perhaps my sons
>> have sinned and cursed God
>> in their hearts.

Cursing God in the heart is sin... sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.

Response by Job 1: 22 -

>> Through all this [death of his children] Job did not sin nor did he blame God.

To blame God and to curse God is sin... sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.

Response by God... Job 38: 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, 19 -

2 >> Who is this that
>> darkens counsel
>> by words without knowledge?

4 >> Where were you
>> when I laid the foundation of the earth?

[i.e., "in the beginning, God..." - our "original genesis"... by implication his "original intent"]

12 >> Have you ever in your life
>> commanded the morning, and
>> caused the dawn to know its place;

17 >> Have the gates of death
>> been revealed to you?

18 >> Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
>> Tell me, if you know all this.

19 >> Where is the way to the dwelling of Light?
>> And darkness, where is its place,

Response by God continues... Job 40: 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 -

2 >> Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
>> Let him who reproves God answer it.

8 >> Will you really annul my judgment?
>> Will you condemn me that you may be justified?

[e.g., death does not take a holiday... the wages of sin is death... sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.]

9 >> Or do you have an arm like God,
>> And can you thunder with a voice like his?

12 >> Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him;
>> And tread down the wicked where they stand.

13 >> Hide them in the dust together;
>> bind them in the hidden place.

14 >> Then I will also confess to you,
>> That your own right hand can save you.

This concludes the responses by Job and God...

>> Even if there is no life after death,
>> it's been a wonderful life
>> and it's much like going to blissful sleep
>> after a long and busy day.

>> Tennyson said it well--
>> to go with his fathers and
>> lie down in restful sleep.

>> Death holds no dread or fear
>> for me
>> who is probably closer
>> than anyone reading this.

>> Serenity is accepting
>> what we cannot change and
>> having the wisdom
>> to realize that
>> it is something we cannot change.

Elaine, you said "even if there is no life after death..."

Do you mean to say that there IS life after death, or do you mean to say that there IS life after resurrection FROM death?

Personally, I do not believe in life "after" (and continuing in) death but I do believe in life after resurrection "from" death.

A Poem -

First Breath

From Adam, Eve, Abel and Seth
To the last Saint to sleep in death
We will inhale our first resurrection after death breath together
And we will sing the resurrection song of the redeemed where Jesus is forever

Maranatha ... Amen

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

See YOU Elaine At The Resurrection...

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Noel, Just to get things straight, let's sort out the terms we are using.

Exposure: in the gay community, usually consequent to sodomy in the receptive partner. This was the moment when the virus actually entered the gay man.

Seroconversion: The time from initial exposure to development of antibodies in the infected individual. At that time, it was around 6 weeks and characterized by a flu like illness. Prior to seroconversion, infected individuals would have negative antibody tests, even though they had the virus. It was this "window" period that was especially dangerous for blood banks.

ARC: Aids related complex. At that time, this was a constellation of symptoms that led up to AIDS. I believe that this category was eventually discarded

AIDS: Diagnosis based on blood tests designed to measure immune cells, such as T4. May have also included specific infections such as PCP.

A quick search on the internet verifies my recollection which was based on the latest material available at that time. In those days, because the field was rapidly evolving, data was being constantly being revived and made available to those in the field.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02061-4/abstract

No doubt things have changed since then. I left gays to their own devices about 1996, shortly after protease inhibitors became available.

Hi Art,
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your question about "original genesis" and the "original intent" of our Creator. I have never heard anybody but you use the phrase "original genesis" - to me, it sounds redundant because the word genesis means beginning. I'm confused.

Regarding God's original intent, can you just be specific with what you are asking me? I feel like you want my answer to be an arrow coming from my bow, hitting the target, but the target I see is the size of Texas and in foggy weather, so I can't see the dot in the middle. Can you just tell me what the dot looks like?

Examples of specific questions: "How do you think both Creation stories in Genesis address gay believers who want to marry someone of the same gender?" Or "How does your understanding of the two texts in Leviticus that deal with gay activity inform your beliefs on gay marriage for believers?"

"Original Genesis" and "Original Intent"

In response to questions - Posted 24 December 2008 at 5:15

Hi Heather,

Putting "original genesis" together with "original intent" is simply a way of emphasizing the "foundation" to a discussion of terms, meanings and conclusions.

Original Intent - what was intended by the founders of the constitution when "they" wrote it?

Original Intent - what was intended by our creator the nano-second he created us... not "whatever will be will be" sometime in the future after sin wreaked havoc on his perfect creation?

Original Genesis - what were we when we came to "be" the nano-second the creative word was spoken.

My use of "original genesis" is simply a play on words to draw attention to "our creation in the beginning"... it's easier to say 2 words instead of 5 words.

Beginning = origin(al)
Creation = genesis

Thus, "our creation in the beginning" or, simply put, our "original genesis."

You've never heard anybody but me use the phrase "original genesis" in this way because I coined it on this blog page... I had never used it before that I can remember... you are a witness to a "new creation" of a viable new phrase... how about that... use it and prosper with wisdom, knowledge and understanding... I know I have... especially the understanding part... it's nice to know that we can stand on something that is solid under us that is foundational and will NEVER go away... his word is true... "in the beginning, God... ."

>> Regarding God's original intent,
>> can you just be specific with what you are asking me?

Ok...

I liked your articulation of the 2 creation accounts, and I am simply asking for your understanding of what you think God did... originally, and what God intended... originally.

Do the 2 creation accounts contradict each other, and cancel each other out, so that the conclusion is that anything goes and "whatever will be will be" because God did NOT create ONLY males and females, and God definitely did NOT create ONLY 1 heterosexual male and ONLY 1 heterosexual female?

You pose an example question that is not relevant because the 2 creation accounts are not dealing with same sex marriage... they can't reproduce... and there were not 2 of the same sex at our "original genesis"... and this conclusion is viable whether a creationist is making the point or whether an evolutionist is making the point... it takes 2 to tango, and to reproduce the 2 must be of the opposite sex.

"In the beginning, God" said so, and now we know that human DNA says so also...

That's what I mean by "defining and defending" a point of view, a belief, not simply expressing a belief such as, "I think thus and so because it makes sense to me."

The onus is on those who assert that our "original genesis" included "whatever will be will be" regarding sexuality.

The burden of proof is on those who assert that God's "original intent" included "whatever will be will be" regarding sexuality.

It is my understanding that since life is eternal but our participation in life is not because of sin, without an "original genesis" to give us wisdom, knowledge and understanding about sin and death, God's "original intent" for us would not be possible without a resurrection to return us to God's forever choice for us.

A poem -

This poem I crafted tells us a little bit about what we can expect after our last breath... and then our "first" next breath... at the resurrection.

First Breath

From Adam, Eve, Abel and Seth
To the last Saint to sleep in death
We will inhale our first resurrection after death breath together
And we will sing the resurrection song of the redeemed where Jesus is forever

Maranatha ... Amen Heather

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

When we assess individuals as diverse as John Paul II, Adolph Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Mother Theresa, we would never consider it significant to point out that they were all heterosexual.

All experience proves that sexual orientation tells you nothing of significance, except whether people are attracted to the opposite or the same sex. And yet, when we label somebody homosexual, we feel we've said something significant about them, something that goes beyond mere sexual orientation, something that does not make them entitled to the same human rights as the rest of us.

Those of us who have friends who are gay, know, as Elaine points out, that they are as diverse as the rest of us. We tend to fall, all of us, gay or straight into groups of the good, the bad and the ugly--and maybe even a mix of all three. The issue of homosexuality is at its root not a question of morality but about humanity.

For those of us who accept science, who reject the idea that natural science is a conspiracy concocted by Satan to spite fundamentalists, this issue is easy. Evolution provides a perfectly understandable model for what happened. According to science, we we're all at one time heterosexual and black and we lived in Africa. On our journey into the rest of the world things obviously happened, developments that made us more diverse, but importantly, not less human.

Fundamentalism complicates things because it forces believers to think that it was all right for Old Testament law to mandate that homosexuals be executed for who they were, and that it's still all right to "sodomize" our gay friends with our pious language.

Last Saturday the New York Times published opinion polls from 1968 ("The Way We Were, 1968, p. A21). On a long list, which includes 51% who believed that Richard Nixon had a 'warm personality', a striking number appears:

"53% of non-blacks agreed that there should be laws against marriages between Negroes and whites."

Forty years from now, the readers of the New York times will be reading about Prop 8 and the support it garned with the same disbelief that we look at the bigotry of a by-gone era. There is no doubt whatsoever what the verdict of history is going to be.

A scientific fact to ponder: Every fetus ALWAYS begins as female! (Then nature messes things up and changes them into males! :-)

Aage and Elaine,

Little brown people, like me, believe they're the finished product of human evolution. I'm clean as far as the absence of body hair. I'm ok shaving my facial hair only once, at most twice, weekly. The second of 7 brothers, I was my mom's helper.

Science is a wonderful tool... up to a point.

Science tells us "what" about our DNA... "not why" our DNA was created ... and that's the way the tool should be used.

Science can't include our "original genesis" into the conversation about our biology.

[Side bar -

Previously someone asked for clarification about "original genesis" because it was confusing.

The 2 word phrase "original genesis" is simply a short version of the 5 word phrase "in the beginning God created..."

Beginning = origin(al)
Created = genesis

So... "in the beginning God created" = "original genesis"

- End of side bar]

Science can't include our "original genesis" into the conversation about what society will eventually decide by statute about the sexuality that "came out" subsequent to the "fall" from that which was called "good" about male and female, their "being and behavior".

Science can only reveal to us the facts of our DNA... and the union of egg and sperm... and the consequent fetus... all very interesting to ponder...

However, our "original genesis" and God's "original intent" for us before sin affected his forever "choice" for us is the point of view of Jesus when on the cross.

He said "it is finished," and then he breathed his last breath, bowed his head and died.

What is the "IT" that was "finished" at the last breath and death of Jesus if not a response to sin that affected our "original genesis" and God's "original intent" for us?

The "IT" that was "finished" was the incarnation atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" of creator and created in the person of Jesus, in whom God was reconciling the world to himself... while we were still sinners.

And, if the point of view of Jesus on the cross about our "original genesis" and God's "original intent," before sin changed his forever "choice" for us, is not the "IT" that was "finished," then what was "IT" that was "finished," and how is it related to the discussion of normal heterosexuality and abnormal homosexuality and bisexuality.

Can anyone define and defend what they think is the point of view of Jesus on the cross when he said "it is finished" and realistically support the proposition that the "IT" that was "finished" includes societal rejection of heterosexuality as the societal norm and now homosexuality must be allowed to affect federal, state and local law?

Sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.

If the point of view of Jesus about our "original genesis" is not regarded as relevant by some Christians in world society and in this SpectrumMagazine.org blog, then any discussion of DNA, biology, conduct, life-style, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, hermaphroditism, as well as

>> "the role of hormones,
>> especially androgens,
>> on gender identity
>> (and by extension sexual orientation)
>> is being well established in the scientific community...

... etc. is simply a discussion going nowhere.

This kind of discussion reminds me of the comment by the elderly man about the fall of communism and the USSR in the 1980's, "70 years on the road to nowhere."

Randy Shilts wrote "And The Band Played On" in the 1980's and then he died of aids.

I wonder if anybody was with him who may have pointed up and told him of the wonderful forever awaiting him at the resurrection?

Or was he simply encouraged to "be proud" of who he was, and patted on the back, and affirmed as having nothing to repent of because "whatever will be will be" about our sexuality since God made us who we are... so he should just disregard those who may have brought up the God stuff about sin and repentance and conversion... that some today find hurtful and for which others apologize.

If this is NOT the conclusion of the book under consideration, where is the thought-full, i.e. defined and defended, counterpoint to the point made previously...

>> So, final question...
>> Does anyone know if DNA "determines" conduct?

>> We "know" DNA determines "being" (biology),
>> but the question is does DNA determine
>> normal AND abnormal sexuality?

>> We "know" that DNA determines normal biology...
>> and abnormal biology because of
>> the negative effects of sin,
>> but does DNA "determine" conduct,
>> normal AND abnormal?

>> Starting with our "original genesis"
>> and extrapolating from "in the beginning, God [created]..."
>> it is my layman's understanding that
>> the answer is NO,
>> DNA does NOT "determine" conduct,
>> otherwise there would NEVER have been sin... ever.

Sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.

>> And, associated with this conclusion is,
>> DNA does NOT "determine" conduct,
>> otherwise there would ONLY be heterosexuality...
>> but sin changed God's forever choice for us.

Sin is not a "catchall" for everything we see as bad.

>> Does anyone here know more than what God has already revealed to us
>> about our "original genesis" and his "original intent" for us?

Are there any other inquiring minds (other than mine) that would like "definition and defense" by the proponents of point # 3 above, posted 23 December 2007 at 10:06.

>> What possibilities for responsible
>> Christian living are there
>> for those who know they are
>> lifelong homosexuals?
>> This is the question.

>> Three answers are floating about among we SDAs at the moment:
>> (1) heterosexual marriage,
>> (2) celibacy and
>> (3) a permanent,
>> sexually exclusive and
>> genuinely loving homosexual relationship
>> that benefits the community as well as those within it.

The issue is not the person who posted it, the issue is point #3, that is promoted as a societal "good" by the anti-prop 8 proponents on this page and disruptive anti-prop 8 proponents in California.

This is a long post because I will not be posting here again... unless a thought-full "definition and defense" is posted... either pro or con... preferably con... to promote discussion.

If Jesus is brought into the conversation as well as science, it will be a fruitful discussion that will multiply, but if Jesus and our "original genesis" are excluded and only science and statistics and personal anecdotal evidence are adduced as significant, well, it will be the written equivalent of a valley of "dry bones" and the discussion will "go nowhere" fast.

Thomas Zwemer,

I truly appreciate your spirit filled input from your around 9 decades of real world experience and your biblically based evangelistic witness on the pages of this SpectrumMagazine.org blog... there is life in the words you write...

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hi Art,
I think I might understand what your perspective is now.
You wrote: "Original Intent - what was intended by our creator the nano-second he created us... not 'whatever will be will be' sometime in the future after sin wreaked havoc on his perfect creation?"
Interestingly, the text of the two Creation stories speaks not of sin. Sin enters the language once Cain slays his brother Abel (Gen 4:7). Add to that, God did not create humans with everlasting/perfect bodies. God created humans who relied on access to the tree of life to keep from dying. Whether or not we take the tree of life literally, we can probably agree: this imagery directs our minds to the idea of "where can i get eternal life?" It has always been found outside of ourselves; in God. From day one.
To answer your question, what I think the two Creation stories teach us, I believe Dr Carol Meyers, Professor of Biblical Studies and Archaeology at Duke University, in her 1988 text "Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context" says it best:
"the focus on sin and punishment in the traditional exegesis of Genesis 3 is a distortion. Disobedience and its consequences clearly figure in the story of the first human pair; this is the characteristic way for a creation story to suggest that the assertion of independence from any authority is a feature of first (= all) human life ... None of the words that are part of the Hebrew vocabulary for sin and transgression are present in the story ... Nor, as we have pointed out, does the Hebrew Bible ever associate any of the many sins later perpetrated individually or collectively by the children of Israel with the behavior of the woman and the man in Eden ... The absence in the Hebrew Bible of an intrinsic identification between the acts in Eden with human proclivity for sin thus makes it difficult to look at Genesis 2-3 as narrative dealing primarily with sin ... The very fact that the serpent is held accountable along with the woman and the man diminishes the truly human theme of disobedience to God's word ...
"The etiological workings of the human mind suggest that something must have happened to have produced such a state. The act in question, the eating of a forbidden food, is appropriate for a folk explanation but hardly has the same force as does murder, in the Cain story, as a paradigm for human sinfulness."

Meyers says that the most prominent theme word in the Eden tale is precisely the word 'to eat' and it's noun 'food,' right after human/man/Adam. She says it tells us that "the beginning of human existence coincides with a concern for food ... The daily, central, interminable concern of the farmer in the highlands of Palestine has shaped the movement, focus, and vocabulary of the Eden narrative. Hence the punishment for disobeying is increasing their toil and denying access to the green and lush Garden of Eden.

Meyers continues, "Indeed, many scholars now recognize the background of the wisdom in the Eden tale in terms of both its literary form and its existential concerns. Unlike the pragmatic, instructional wisdom of a book like Proverbs, the third chapter of Genesis-like Job, Ecclesiastes, and certain Psalms-belongs to the speculative type of wisdom that deals with the meaning of the paradoxes and harsh facts of life ...
"... the address to the serpent includes a curse, but God does not curse either the woman or the man. In the latter case, however, the ground itself is cursed in the context of God's words to the man. The earth is seen as not being the naturally productive substance that it potentially could be. Therefore, to cast aside another common misinterpretation of the story, human existence itself is not cursed;" [think: Palestinian highlands full of "thorns and thistles" Gen 3:18 ... not all ground on earth can be described like this].

In Psalms 127 and 128 we see that the toils and parenting of this life on earth are given further meaning: in the context of God, toils and parenting are gifts because they produce happiness from food and children. :)

To answer your question, "what was intended by our creator the nano-second [God] created us" - my answer is, our Creator created bodies that needed God to continue living. We were created not as independent everlasting superhumans, but as dependent humans. I do not believe the story of Eve and Adam is necessarily untrue, though I do believe it is a mythical tale, a legend that answers etiological questions. To read the two Creation stories as history or science is, I believe, denying a lot. The way words/literature/poetry function in a society is as important as science and history, if not more.

You asked: "Do the 2 creation accounts contradict each other, and cancel each other out, so that the conclusion is that anything goes and 'whatever will be will be' because God did NOT create ONLY males and females, and God definitely did NOT create ONLY 1 heterosexual male and ONLY 1 heterosexual female?"
I say nobody is going to disagree with you that it takes a sperm and an ovum to create a human baby. Nobody, by defending the desire of LGBT to marry whomever they desire, is trying to deny the traditional method of procreation's validity or steal the glory.
I do not believe the two Creation stories cancel each other out; I believe they both carry significant meanings.
I do not subscribe to the philosophy "que sera, sera" in that, I choose to believe in an interactive God who is intimately and deeply involved with humanity, continually, though quietly at times.

You write: "The onus is on those who assert that our 'original genesis' included 'whatever will be will be' regarding sexuality."
It seems to me you have made the assumption that the Genesis stories are meant to address decisions regarding who to kiss/romance/marry. I do not believe that is the purpose of those stories.
1. You have already said you see a purpose for marriage other than procreation (hence, you believe 65 year old widows can marry, and infertile married couples can have sex). I agree, marriage serves purposes beyond procreation.
2. God sets the ideal for romantic love in the book the Song of Solomon - passion, desire, and sincerity. All marriages should strive for this ideal romantic love.
3. Other than Levitical laws, most of which we do not still observe, the Bible does not condemn, outlaw or address loving, consensual, committed gay or lesbian relationships. It does address gay/lesbian activities in terms of lust and sex outside of a marriage-type committment. I do not know why Bible writers do not address gay or lesbian lovers in the context of a committment.
4. Paul tells us very clearly, it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Heather, Can you provide an example in the Bible of the type of gay romantic relationships approved by God? Do any of the direct references to marriage in Scripture allow it to include members of the same sex?

Is "original genesis" and the focus on sin and punishment in the traditional exegesis of Genesis 3 a "distortion"?
_________________________

Hi Heather,

I know the season is nearly over, but I would like to say to you what I say to tenants with whom I interact during working hours -

Happy Thanksgiving... and
Happy Christmas... and ...
Happy New Year

This is my 3 in 1 Hallmark card type of greeting.

I used to explain to folks why I say "Happy" Christmas instead of "Merry" Christmas, but it took to long and seemed like an intrusion into their personal "knowing" space.

Now when I finish with the 3 in 1 greeting, I always get a smile and a thank-you without any hesitancy.

Simply, "merry" seems more properly associated with the merriment of a happy (wild?) new year celebration instead of the joy and happiness and respectfulness usually associated with the birth of any child.

Of course, a private party to celebrate does allow for dignified merriment, but I think you get the point.
_________________________

You wrote -

>> Interestingly, the text of the two Creation stories
>> speaks not of sin.
>> Sin enters the language
>> once Cain slays his brother Abel (Gen 4:7).

My comment -

True, "sin enters the language" in chapter 3, but when did sin enter... before or after the language entered?

I think that the 2 creation stories do speak of sin... in verse 24 and 25 of chapter 2, "... a man ... shall cleave to his wife ... become one flesh, ... man and his wife were both naked ... not ashamed," and in verse 7 of chapter 3, "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked."

They "knew"...

That is the instant humanity died... and so in chapter 3 when Cain killed his brother and "sin enters the language" in the Genesis account of our "original genesis" and God's "original intent" for us, "sin enters the language" because sin had previously entered the mind, heart, soul, will, i.e. the "knowing" part of the newly created (call it whatever you will, it is something not visible yet it exists) man and woman who "knew" that they were naked.

It just took a few hundred years for what they "knew" in their minds to have personal meaning to their own physical bodies... not just the physical body of their son Abel who sleeps in the dust of the earth waiting for his next breath... i.e., his first breath after resurrection from death.

You quote Dr. Carol Meyers -

>> "the focus on sin and punishment
>> in the traditional exegesis of
>> Genesis 3
>> is a distortion.

My comment -

By calling the "focus on sin and punishment" in the exegesis of Gen. 3 a "distortion," do you think that Dr. Meyers thinks that our "original genesis" and God's "original intent" for his newly created man and woman, who were created to "become one flesh" and to reproduce, is also a "distortion?"

Another quote from Dr. Meyers -

>> The absence in the Hebrew Bible of
>> an intrinsic identification
>> between the acts in Eden with
>> human proclivity
>> for sin
>> thus makes it difficult to
>> look at Genesis 2-3 as narrative
>> dealing primarily with sin ...

My comment -

True, "sin enters the language" in chapter 3, but when did "human proclivity for sin" enter... "primarily"...?

It seems to me that they "knew" "primarily" in chapter 2 of Genesis... Dr. Meyers.

Another quote from Dr. Meyers -

>> "The etiological workings
>> of the human mind
>> suggest that something must have happened
>> to have produced such a state.

My comment -

The word etiology ("etiological") is a "high falutin" word for my favorite new phrase "original genesis"... it is my new favorite phrase because it is so easy to understand, and the implications are a natural extrapolation "from" the text, not an eisegesis "into" the text.

In response to Dr. Meyers, I am simply applying "original genesis" to the "assignment of a cause, origin or reason for something" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition)

Yes Dr. Meyers, "something" happened -

>> something must have happened
>> to have produced such a state.

Could that "something" just maybe... possibly... perhaps... it would not be a stretch, would it, to say that "it"... happened when they "knew" they were naked?

You quote me -

>> You wrote:
>> "Original Intent -
>> what was intended by our creator
>> the nano-second he created us...
>> not 'whatever will be will be'
>> sometime in the future
>> after sin
>> wreaked havoc on his perfect creation?"

My response -

It's still a good question, is it not... "what" was intended by our creator...

And also, "what" was intended by the inclusion of “punishment and sin” in the creation story, the “traditional exegisis” which Dr. Meyers calls a "distortion?"

I think that what was intended was -

Continuity from our "original genesis" and God's "original intent"...

... leading ultimately to the words of Jesus on the cross when he said "it is finished," breathed his last breath, bowed his head and died...

... for our eternal benefit in his incarnation atonement, the at-one-ment, the indissoluble "union" of creator and created in the person of Jesus in whom God was reconciling the world to himself...

... already justified by his blood while we were still sinners (Rom 4:25 and 5:9)...

... for those who accept the call out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9)

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Hansen,
No, I can not provide an example in the Bible of the type of gay romantic relationships that God approved of. No, I do not know of any references to marriage in the Bible that include gay or lesbian marriages. Typically authors write on topics they are familiar with. Unless, of course, we were like the Muslims who believe their Koran was dictated word-by-word directly from Allah. That would be a case where God could insert into a holy text something the author is not familiar with.

Art,
You are like Queen Elizabeth who didn't like saying "Merry Christmas" because of the association of merriment with partying, and so she started saying "Happy Christmas" and now you will rarely ever hear any British person say the old-fashioned "Merry Christmas."
I asked you a question (Who gets to choose which gender a hermaphrodite gets to marry - the hermaphrodite, their doctor, etc?) in several of my comments, and you implied to me that you thought it would be more fair if I answered some of your questions. I believe I have answered many of your questions now. I am requesting that you answer my question, since it only seems fair.
You wrote: "True, 'sin enters the language' in chapter 3, but when did sin enter... before or after the language entered?" Sin actually enters the language in Gen 4:7. I believe your question shows you are asking too much from the 2 Creation stories. You and I can disagree about the purpose of the 2 Creation stories - if they were meant to teach us historically how sin entered humanity, or not. I believe I gave a thorough comment before this one, regarding what I believe the text of Genesis and the Hebrew Bible reveals to us concerning the purpose of the 2 Creation stories and how they functioned before Christianity existed. You can view Genesis 1-3 as a historical document as much as you like, but to expect others to share your perspective, you should show from the text of Genesis 1-3 and it's context, the Hebrew Bible, how you justify such a perspective. Especially when trying to stretch the lessons of Gen 1-3 to include a lesson about who a person should kiss/date/marry. Meanwhile, it can be dangerous to take literal instructions from a parable. Look at the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, Matt 20:1-16, and from that we do not decide to pay somebody who has worked 1/4th of a day the same wages as somebody who has worked the full day. It is not a Christian principle we live by, but it is a story whose deeper meaning is applicable to all - the gift of eternal life is the same no matter how much labor you have done yourself.
Likewise, if you believe the 2nd Creation story is meant to teach us who God created us to kiss/date/marry, how can you not also believe God wants men to literally cultivate and work the soil? Gen 2:15 occurs before sin has entered, so does that mean every man should today strive towards the ideal of literally cultivating and working soil? Is there any room for non-gardeners in your understanding of God's ideal for humanity?
You ask if I think Dr Meyers thinks believing God's intent for humanity to reproduce is a distortion, since she calls the focus on sin and punishment in the exegesis of Gen 3 a distortion. I think she would say you are trying to extrapolate too much from the Gen 2-3 myth. In the case of Christians living in an overpopulated city, wouldn't it be more charitable to adopt 5 or 10 or 12 year old orphans from the foster care system who already exist than to insist on adding new babies?

Tom wrote: "I am not willing to encourage their sexual appetites under any circumstances."

That is absolutely correct. The homosexual lobby has, unfortunately, been quite successful within *certain* SDA circles. This lobby must spend, in the aggregate, millions on its propaganda machine. It's my understanding, although I don't have figures handy, that much more money is appropriated by government for AIDS than for a much more prevalent problem -- cancer.

Homosexual activity is against nature and we don't even have to bring in religion. Even man's minds are perverted! How sad indeed.

God "Literally" Told Adam and Eve Their (Our) History and Future... Pass It On.

Hi Heather,

My response to your question is at the end, but I thought it best to preface my response with a literal interpretation of history... hope you appreciate it.

_________________________

Ooooops... you caught my error... after I hit "post comment" I noticed that I typed the wrong chapter in which Cain killed his brother Abel... it is not Gen. 3 when the word sin "enters the language"... it was, is and always will be Gen. 4... you got me on that one.

However #1...

It was, is and always will be in Gen. 2 that the newlyweds "knew" that they were naked... and all WAS right with the world that God had created.

However #2...

It was, is and always will be in Gen. 3 that the newlyweds "knew" that they were naked... and all was NOT right with the world that God had created... so they tried to hide from him.

In other words, they had already sinned "before" Cain killed his brother Abel and sin "entered the language" in Gen. 4.

However #3...

However... an error about which chapter something is first mentioned is not the error that is at issue here, is it?

What I mean now and will also mean tomorrow is that there is ONLY 1 "original genesis" and ONLY 1 "original intent" and ONLY 1 way it NOW "is," but there are a gazillion "what it means to me" statements possible, or... at least more than 2.

For my "literalist" friends, "gazillion" simply means "a whole lot," in the same way that "a 1,000 years" in Revelation simply means "a long time."

Sometimes, a literal "original genesis" and a literal "original intent" means "literally" what the words mean, and sometimes "a 1,000 years" does NOT mean literally what the words mean in themselves... i.e., words have "literal meaning" in themselves and words also have "symbolic meaning" in context and not in themselves.

The words in Gen. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in our current discussion are meant literally in the specific context of "original genesis" and "original intent" and "knowing" nakedness and "knowing" sin and "knowing" death.

What I mean is -

God "literally" told Adam how he was created
God "literally" used the earth to form Adam
God "literally" transformed Adam into a "living soul" when
God "literally" breathed... air into the lungs of Adam

[- sidebar - God breathes?

Yes God "literally breathed air into" the lungs of Adam...

... if he did not, God would not have "literally" told Adam that Adam became a "living soul" by God breathing the breath of life into his lungs after Adam had been a non-living soul.

If God had not told Adam that God breathed air into the lungs of Adam, then we can extrapolate that Adam would NOT have told Eve and their children that God breathed air into the lungs of Adam so he could become a "living soul" if God had not done so, right?

- end of sidebar]

God "literally" told Adam how God created Eve
God "literally" told Adam and Eve that they were free to "be" all he made them to "be"
God "literally" told Adam and Eve what they were to "do" with their bodies to reproduce
God "literally" told Adam and Eve that they were not free to disobey without consequences
God "literally" told Adam and Eve to put on the animal skins of the animals that
God "literally" killed for them and prepared for them to wear
God "literally" told his newlyweds what's what, is and will be
God "literally" told his newlyweds Adam and Eve that they would die
God "literally" told Adam and Eve that death was what the bugs, spiders and other small animals experienced as Adam and Eve stepped on them

[sidebar about "literally" -

I'm sure there are many more "literal" points that can be made about what was probably verbalized and passed on generation to generation before the stories were written down... so we could debate about atonement and what Jesus meant when he said "it is finished" and died.

end of sidebar]

After God "literally" got the "kitchen table talk" going about our "original genesis" and his "original intent" for his newly weds Adam and Eve, it continued after Adam and Eve "knew" that they were naked and told their own children what God had told them... before AND after they "knew" they were naked... after they "knew" they had sinned... after they "knew" they would die like the small animals died.

After Adam and Eve "literally" experienced death the instant the "knew" they were naked, it still took a few hundred years for their physical bodies to experience what they "knew" when the "knew" they were naked and experienced fear and the desire to hide from their ONLY creator.

Adam and Eve were not sure why they suddenly felt afraid and had a new desire to hide from God, but we can be sure today that Adam and Eve told their own children about the time that they "knew" that they were naked and tried to hide from God.

How do we know that God "literally" did all these things and that all of these things literally happened?

Well... we're still talking about it, so "something" must have happened to get the kitchen table talk started.

Extrapolating from the verbal stories about our "original genesis" and God's "original intent" that God told to Adam and Eve and that were passed on to their children who passed the stories on to their children during story time before they were written down and passed on and sold on http://www.Amazon.com ... it's a very valid extrapolation to say that

God told Adam,
Adam told Eve,
Adam and Eve told their children,
their children told their children...

... and here we are, however many thousands of years later...

... wondering what happened and if there was "literally" an "original genesis" with "original intent" that is meaningful today to understand the question of how to deal with God's forever choice for us as heterosexual male and female or if homosexuality was included in our "original genesis" and in God's "original intent" for us and in the stories that were passed on, generation to generation.

If homosexuality were to be included in the instructions by God to the newlyweds Adam and Eve, where and when did the kitchen table talk about homosexuality start in the bible and by whom was homosexuality as a viable alternative to heterosexuality start during the kitchen table talk...

It certainly was not God who "literally" told Adam and Eve that homosexuality was a viable alternative to heterosexuality when he "literally" told the newlyweds to "be fruitful and multiply" to fill the earth... and Adam and Eve "literally" told their own children to be "fruitful and multiply"...

... so God could start the universal housing program by preparing the neighborhood planet house next door for the overflow of children.

Your comment -

>> I asked you a question
>> (Who gets to choose which gender
>> a hermaphrodite gets to marry -
>> the hermaphrodite, their doctor, etc?)
>> in several of my comments,
>> and you implied to me that
>> you thought it would be more fair
>> if I answered some of your questions.

>> I believe I have answered many of your questions now.
>> I am requesting that you answer my question,
>> since it only seems fair.

I have already answered you question elsewhere, so I will put it "in other words" here...

My previous response was, and still is, that in a society under "law" we "all" get to choose which gender a hermaphrodite gets to marry... if it is a matter of law.

If it is not a matter of law who gets to choose, well, of course, the individual hermaphrodite gets to choose.

If the issue morphs into a question of marriage, well, no, it is not marriage, unless society decides by statute that same sex marriage is under "law" or whether hermaphrodite marriage is under "law".

So far the "do not call same sex marriage" marriage proponents are winning the debate at the kitchen table and in the courts.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Cruelty, like every other vice, requites no motive outside of itself; it only requires opportunity.

George Elliott

Yes opportunity is in this discussion for Cruelty.

I still find that Christians have the biggest chip on their shoulder for Cruelty to others.

Good works are not the norm for Christians as a whole.
Grace must have something to do with that. Or is it the lack of, that sets me off.

Reading the story of that Lady that had nothing except a block of land and an old trailer home brought tears to my eyes.

I wonder if the man taking the food up to her wondered if she were a lesbian or some kind of drug taker, or better yet a person with AIDS.

If you are going to some kind of SDA sabbath school at the moment you will know all about Grace and the cross or wooden stake.

You all want Grace don't you?
Or is it the Law you want!!
If it is the Law you want, then live by the law, but be carefull because the law will be measured out to you.
Noel

An evangelist recently completed a month-long series of meetings in the local Adventist church. Night after night he presented the story of Sodom and declared that it showed God's opinion of the alernative lifestyle. A photo of people suffering burns was followed by the cover of Newsweek re gay marriage. The thought occurred to me that the Sodom story is as much about the homosexual lifestyle as the Robert Picton murder case is about the heterosexual lifestyle. (Robert Picton murdered and dismembered 49 women.) Am I misguided in thinking the Sodom story has nothing to do with an alternative lifestyle?

A couple weeks later the pastor presented a sermon warning us that: a) Adventists are shopping for groceries on Sabbath; b) Adventists are going to restaurants on the Sabbath; c) Adventists are drinking coffee and tea; d) Adventists are getting divorced at a rate similar to the general population; e) Homosexuality is making its way into the church. Re the latter item, he mentioned a pastor friend of his who had been married heterosexually but gave in to the tendencies of his youth.

As a gay man (who had his membership taken away some years ago) I wondered how this sermon was meant to be helpful and encouraging to me and the other gay/lesbian people in the congregation.

art,
you haven't answered my question, but instead told me about how marriage functions in society. i know how marriage functions in society. here's my question:
I'm wondering who you think should decide who a hermaphrodite can marry (ie: their pastor, their doctor, their parent, each hermaphrodite themselves, etc)? What does your Bible-based worldview tell you? I'm not referencing the legal aspect at all nor what society thinks.
Let's say the hermaphrodite was the first known born on an island in Micronesia and they did not have TV or the internet, but they did have you and your family as their missionaries. And let's say they asked for your advice. Since our Bible-based worldviews differ, I am curious if yours informs you differently on the topic of hermaphrodite marriages/unions than mine does. What would your advice be?
i have two more questions for you from my last comment:
If you believe the 2nd Creation story is meant to teach us who God created us to kiss/date/marry, how can you not also believe God wants men to literally cultivate and work the soil? Gen 2:15 occurs before sin has entered, so does that mean every man should today strive towards the ideal of literally cultivating and working soil? Is there any room for non-gardeners in your understanding of God's ideal for men today?
In the case of Christians living in an overpopulated city, wouldn't it be more charitable to adopt 5 or 10 or 12 year old orphans from the foster care system who already exist than to insist on adding new babies?

Robert, Very good question. Problem is that because the Adventist church is largely a law and works emphasis rather than a grace and faith emphasis, you will not get much help in the church. Actually, few people struggling against any sinful desire get much help.

The key is found in the OT doctrine of perfection. If you look at all the people the Bible describes as perfect, none were sinless. Scripture calls Jacob a perfect man just before he sold wrangled away from Esau his birthright. Noah was considered perfect. David was called a perfect man. Job was "perfect." Abraham was commanded to be perfect. Interestingly, Elijah, who was translated, was not described as perfect.

What all these perfect people had in common was a relationship with YHVH. They were not sinless, yet because of their relationship, they were thought to be.

If gay people have a relationship with God and are willing to acknowledge their sin, living by faith, they can still be considered perfect. Faith is what makes them perfect, not their sexuality.

A divorced man or woman who finds themself without a marriage partner at a young age, do you think that their libido is removed when the spouse leaves? Hardly. If you think Adventist singles is a monastic community, i'm sorry to tell you it isn't.

The perfectionistic tendencies in Adventism tend to consider sin as an act rather than a state of mind. Jesus said the world would be convinced of sin, not because of an act but because of unbelief. If you are honest with God about your sinful desires and actions and live in an attitude of repentance, sin does not separate you from him.

Abraham's life is recounted in the NT as a series of victories. His numerous failures are not recounted. So is the life of the Christian who believes that Jesus shed his blood for our sin.

The real danger lies with those who refuse to acknowledge desires and actions as sinful. The fornicator, gay or straight, who refuses to acknowledge the weakness of his flesh is the one on dangerous ground. He who smites his chest in sorrow and repentance goes on his way justified.

Thank you for your encouraging words Hansen. I realized some time ago that I will not be ministered to by many Adventist clergy - they cannot get over their discomfort around me, and I can understand that - I probably have a poor understanding, or no understanding of many issues heterosexuals deal with.

However, I also remember several fine Adventist clergy who were unafraid to tell me they loved me and offered me many words of encouragement - some even had the honesty to stand before their congregations and say that the Sodom story is not about homosexuality - and of course, anyone who searches "Sodom" in an online Bible, then reads each passage in context, will know that Sodomites are people of both sexual orientations who are callously living it up while thousands around them scrabble about trying to eke out a bare existence.

I especially appreciated one pastor, now deceased, who after discussing homosexuality with me admitted that he knew very little about it - and therefore, he didn't open his mouth to make unhelpful statements in public as sometimes happens.

There are some very fine, honest pastors in the Adventist church and I praise God for them, and thank them for their love and compassion.

I agree that the daily relationship with God is vital for all people, and I would encourage my gay brothers and lesbian sisters to stick close to God no matter what - and never, NEVER look to anyone in any church as the source of your salvation (I know, much easier said that done).

Hi Heather,

I did answer your primary question -

>> I'm wondering who you think should decide
>> who a hermaphrodite can marry
>> (ie: their pastor, their doctor, their parent, each hermaphrodite themselves, etc)?
>> What does your Bible-based worldview tell you?
>> I'm not referencing the legal aspect at all nor what society thinks.

Heather, my bible based world view is based on legislative law... on what is your bible based world view based?

Legislative law means "we the people" decide who can claim the "marriage" designation.

If you are not referencing the legal aspect nor what society thinks, what and who is it that you are speaking of... either society (we... us...) do things legally or we do not... what else is there?

If there is no law against hermaphrodites uniting, THEY "decide" with whom to unite...

If there is no law against hermaphrodites marrying, THEY "decide" whom to marry...

If marriage is not a designation that hermaphrodites can claim, even though they can decide with whom to unite, they can not decide whom to "marry" ... nor can their doctor, nor can their parent... unless laws are put on the federal and state statute books that change current law that include same sex marriage.

However, if the Supreme Court decides to legislate from the bench concerning "same sex marriage" as they did with abortion, who decides will not be based on legislative law but on judicial fiat... easily changed by judicial fiat.

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

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

art,
methinks you are avoiding my question and pulling a red herring by saying the decision of who to marry is up to society or the courts who decide a law.
i am asking you what your moral advice would be, if your opinion was being sought.
Let's say the hermaphrodite was the first known hermaphrodite born on an island in Micronesia with a population of 300 people and they did not have TV or the internet, but they did have you and your family as their missionaries. let's say on this island, marriage was not a legal arrangement, it was a social custom that is recognized by the islanders after a huge ceremonial party, and then the two move in together, into a nice wooden house built by the islanders as a gift. and let's say this single hermaphrodite came to you, sincerely desiring your biblical and moral opinion on if they should marry or not and if so, which gender they could marry. What would your advice be? my advice would be, "Choose your mate based on their character and your attraction to them. Read the Song of Solomon; it describes the importance of desire. Some principles can be found in Proverbs 31."
i also asked you two other questions in my previous comment, but won't ask again, nobody has to answer anything they don't want to.