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 kno